spawn_status

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly explains the tool's behavior by detailing the resolution priority list and manual model pinning. It discloses the internal logic and the location of configuration files, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does and its read-only nature.

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 and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by bullet points for priority and model pinning. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's logic, use case, and configuration details, leaving no gaps for an AI agent to misunderstand.

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 tool has zero parameters (baseline 4), and the description adds significant semantic value by explaining the output in terms of resolution priority and model pinning. This goes beyond what any output schema could provide, fully compensating for the lack of 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's purpose: 'Show which CLI thread-keeper detected as its host, and which CLI each spawn role resolves to'. It specifies the verb 'Show', the resource ('CLI host and spawn role resolution'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'spawn' and 'spawn_budget_status' which have different functions.

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 provides a specific use case: 'Use to sanity-check spawn config when you want loops to fire through a specific agent.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is clear and adequate for a diagnostic tool with no parameters.

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