live_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses that the tool advances the session's cursor by default, which is a mutable side effect not captured by annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description clarifies this behavior and offers a way to avoid it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with two sentences that cover purpose, usage trigger, and parameter behavior. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's role in inter-session coordination, the description is largely complete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, a brief note on the type of data returned (e.g., 'list of actions') would be helpful for an agent to fully gauge utility.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The 'advance_cursor' parameter is well explained in the description, but the 'k' parameter (integer, default 30) is not described. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should clarify 'k' as a limit on the number of results. The omission limits the agent's understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool retrieves activities from other concurrent Claude sessions. It uses specific verbs ('See what OTHER concurrent Claude sessions did') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'brief' which indicates the presence of live data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Call when brief() shows live=N where N>0, or proactively when you suspect a parallel instance is working on something relevant.' It also explains the default cursor advancement behavior and how to peek without consuming via 'advance_cursor=False'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.