get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently labels the operation as a 'read' and limits its scope to selection-only pushed deltas, which communicates the read-only nature and potential limitations. It also provides examples of included fields, giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect, though it omits details like error behavior or whether the call is purely local.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds necessary context about scope and content. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information or excessive jargon.

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 status-retrieval tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the nature of the data (pushed deltas), what it includes (examples), and what it excludes (arbitrary score queries). The output schema handles return-value documentation, so the description need not go further.

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 the schema fully covers the argument space. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate given there are none. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and there is no reason to deviate.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Dorico's current (pushed) application status snapshot'). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting that this is not an arbitrary query of the score, which is a key differentiator among the other tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: it returns the merged status deltas Dorico pushes, such as window mode and note-input state. It also implies when not to use it by stating it is not an arbitrary query of the score, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for score queries. This is strong guidance though slightly implicit regarding alternatives.

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