tidy_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output includes a `routing` field, explains its meaning, and reveals that when 'nothing is connected' it returns concrete fixes rather than just a boolean. This goes beyond the minimal schema and gives the agent actionable expectations about the tool's behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what it does, the second instructs on how to interpret output, and the third discloses behavior in the failure case. No fluff or redundancy.

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, the description adequately explains what it returns and how to interpret it. It mentions the `routing` field and the fallback behavior when nothing is connected. It doesn't describe the exact output schema, but that's acceptable per the rubric since no output schema exists. The only minor gap is not listing what the concrete fixes might look like, but that's beyond the scope for a concise status check.

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 per the guidelines the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's output and behavior rather than parameters, which is entirely appropriate given the schema is empty.

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 purpose: 'Check where tidy-core is connected and where the next command will land.' It specifies the resource (tidy-core), the action (check status), and the key concept (routing). It also differentiates from siblings by explaining the routing field, which is unique to this tool among the listed siblings.

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 gives context on what to do ('Read the `routing` field first') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tidy_target or tidy_plan. Given it is a status-check tool, the use case is implied, but there's no explicit guidance on exclusions or alternatives.

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