wick_status

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the type of information returned (tokens, cost, burn rate, messages left) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, nor does it mention any potential implications like cost or rate limits. The verb 'Get' implies retrieval, but an explicit statement would be clearer.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get your current Claude session stats') and then efficiently lists the included data points. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the necessary context. It clearly states what the tool returns, including specific cost currencies and the messages-left estimate, which is enough for an agent to understand the tool's function and invoke it correctly.

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 0 parameters, and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource ('your current Claude session stats'), explicitly listing the metrics returned (tokens used, cost in USD and INR, burn rate, messages left estimate). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wick_summary (which likely provides summaries) and wick_track (which may track history).

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 implies the tool is for checking current session statistics, and the word 'current' provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wick_summary or wick_track, nor does it mention exclusions. This is a clear context but lacks explicit usage guidance.

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