status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Describe' implies a non-mutating, read-only operation, and the object clarifies that it reports a local-versus-cloud availability summary. However, it does not mention response format, dependencies, side effects, or why it should be used first, leaving some behavioral context implicit.

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 two short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds actionable guidance without redundancy, and no filler words are present.

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 with no output schema, the description conveys what the tool reports and when to use it. Minor ambiguity around 'Warp / Oz data' and 'readable' remains, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool 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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific action ('Describe') and resource ('what Warp / Oz data is readable locally versus cloud-only'), making the tool's scope clear. It also differentiates from the sibling entity-specific tools by focusing on data availability rather than listing or retrieving a particular record type. 'Describe' is slightly soft as a verb, but the object is precise.

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 explicit instruction 'Use this first when coordinating with Warp's AI' gives a clear trigger for when to invoke this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, and the precedence cue provides practical routing guidance.

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