get_exit_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the notable behavioral trait that the result is conditional on a module being enabled, which is genuinely useful context. What's missing is whether this is a read-only lookup (implied), what happens when disabled, and what the payload contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope (signed-in employee) and the precondition (module enabled) are both packed in without wasting words.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns at a high level and flags the module gate. It still leaves the agent guessing about failure behavior when the module is off and about the shape of the returned details.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain — the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the subject is resolved from the signed-in user rather than passed in.

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?

States a specific resource (resignation and exit details) scoped to the signed-in employee, which is a clear verb-less but unambiguous read. It is distinguishable from siblings, none of which cover exit/resignation data. It stops short of a crisp verb+resource phrasing, but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

"When the module is enabled" is a real availability precondition, which is more than nothing. However, it gives no guidance on when an agent should call this versus other profile/status siblings, and no indication of what to do if the module is disabled (error vs empty). Usage is only implied.

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