status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Where this topic stands') and adds a behavioral guideline about not reading due dates, but it does not explicitly confirm that no state is modified or describe error handling. The presentation instruction is helpful, but side-effect disclosure remains 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 compact and front-loaded. It opens with the key purpose, then offers usage guidance, a presentation tip, and the parameter note—all without superfluous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple status tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, usage timing, presentation style, and parameter source. It also lists the output contents (phase, mastery counts, locks) despite lacking an output schema. It omits edge cases like invalid session_id, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the single parameter 'session_id'. The description compensates by stating 'From start_topic,' which tells the agent exactly where to obtain the session ID. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not describe ID format or validation, so it's not a perfect 5.

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: 'Where this topic stands: phase, mastery counts, and what's still locked.' It uses a specific verb ('stands' implies showing status) and specifies the resource (topic) and the exact data points. This differentiates it from sibling tools like start_topic and submit_step, which are action-oriented.

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 explicit usage context: 'Useful for orienting mid-session or after a break.' It also instructs how to relay the output ('Report it... as progress, not as a schedule — don't read out due dates'), which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools 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.