spawn_budget_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing data source (budget daemon, ps, polling interval), staleness behavior, and handling of visible spawns. No contradictions; the description enriches understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 two paragraphs: first succinctly states purpose and output; second adds technical details. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant sentences. Slightly dense with acronyms and references, but overall well-structured.

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?

For a read-only status tool with no parameters, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, output structure (structured content and legacy text), data source, refresh timing, edge cases (just-spawned tasks, visible spawns), and even references relevant constants. No gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional information is required.

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 reports current spawn-budget usage including cap, used, free, and per-task RSS, for deciding whether another spawn() will be admitted. It clearly specifies the verb 'report' and the resource, and distinguishes from siblings like spawn_budget_set and spawn_status.

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?

The description indicates when to use ('to decide whether another spawn() will be admitted') and provides context on timing (daemon refresh, initial estimates for just-spawned tasks). It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools.

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