get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Query' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose permission requirements, rate limits, whether calls to this tool may fail, or what behaviors differ across actions. There is nothing contradictory, but meaningful behavioral context is missing.

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 front-loaded sentence beginning with the core verb 'Query', followed by a specific list of returned attributes. It is concise, with no redundant material, and each word earns its place.

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?

The description does not provide enough information to correctly complete the tool for different actions or input combinations. With no output schema and no annotations, it should at least explain what the action values return or how limit/project/execution_id affect the result, but it does is name output fields.

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?

All four parameters have zero schema description coverage, and the tool description never mentions limit, project, execution_id, or the action enum. The description does not explain how to choose between 'current', 'history', or 'tree_state', and the meaning of the parameters remains complete force.

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 the specific verb 'Query' and names a concrete resource ('active behavior execution status'), listing specific fields (current node path, tick count, duration, error state). This clearly communicates the tool's operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_metrics or load_behavior.

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 execution status, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of prerequisites. The implied usage is present but the agent is left without clear routing.

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