spawn_status

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=true, which matches the read-only status inspection. The description adds substantial behavioral details: resolution priority chain, environment variable overrides, manual model pinning, and mention of structuredContent plus legacy text output. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with bullet points listing priority and model pinning. It is slightly longer than necessary but each sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more concise but still effective.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, resolution priority, manual model pinning, and the output format (structuredContent + legacy text). No gaps remain.

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?

There are no parameters (input schema has no properties, schema coverage 100%). The description adds meaning by explaining what the output shows (resolved CLI for roles, host, etc.) and references structuredContent, which is sufficient without parameters.

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 clearly states the tool shows which CLI thread-keeper detected as its host and which CLI each spawn role resolves to after env+file overrides. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spawn_budget_status, agent_status, and live_status by focusing on spawn configuration resolution.

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 explicitly says 'Use to sanity-check spawn config when you want loops to fire through a specific agent' and provides resolution priority, giving clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the usage context is well-defined.

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