workbuddy_status

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds important non-obvious behavior by stating that no model request is sent and that it only inspects local state. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and object, then adds the key behavioral caveat. No filler, no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 status tool, this is complete: it says what is checked (bridge, limits, installation), what is guaranteed (no model request), and annotations cover the safety profile. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the named check items imply what the result will report.

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, so parameter-level semantics are not a concern. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot add more meaning in this dimension.

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 ('Check') and identifies concrete resources: the local WorkBuddy bridge, configured limits, and installation. The closing constraint 'without sending a model request' further scopes it and distinguishes it from delegation tools like delegate_to_workbuddy.

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 when to use it: whenever you need local status, limits, or installation info without incurring a model request. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of the strongest guidance.

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