fork_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds that it returns {error} for unknown fork_id and enumerates the included components. The annotation already covers read-only, so the added error behavior and scope provide context. However, it doesn't disclose auth needs or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and contents. No unnecessary wording.

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?

The description covers the return contents and error behavior, but lacks explanation of app_id and the meaning of 'environment snapshot' or 'participant components.' It's adequate for a read-only status tool with an output schema absent, but leaves some gaps.

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?

Schema provides no descriptions for app_id or fork_id. The description only indirectly references fork_id in the error condition, but app_id is entirely unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for parameter meaning.

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 it returns the full record for one fork, enumerating specific fields (title, state, participant components, change log, environment snapshot). The verb is implicit in 'status' but the resource and scope are clear, and it distinguishes from siblings like fork_list or fork_log by specifying 'full record' and the error condition.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving comprehensive status of a single fork, but doesn't name fork_list, fork_log, or state when not to use it.

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