get_agent_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing — not whether the call is read-only, what permissions the session requires, what 'diagnostics' contains, or what 'legacy' implies about reliability. Only a weak implication of read-only inspection can be inferred from 'diagnostics.'

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?

It is only six words, but that is under-specification rather than concision: the one sentence spends its entire budget on a deprecation label with no actionable content.

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?

A tool with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented required parameter, and an ambiguous name needs a description that explains inputs and returns; this one leaves an agent unable to call it correctly or interpret 'diagnostics' output.

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 description coverage is 0% and the sole required parameter (session_id) is never mentioned, so the description adds zero meaning about what identifier is needed or where to obtain it. With one undocumented parameter, this is the case where the description must compensate and it does not.

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 reduces the tool to 'Legacy helper: session diagnostics,' which restates the title only loosely and never says it returns an agent's status. It also conflicts with the tool name by framing it as session diagnostics rather than agent state, and gives no way to distinguish it from siblings like list_agents or get_run.

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?

'Legacy helper' faintly signals deprecation but names no alternative and gives no condition for when to call it versus list_agents, wait_for_idle, or get_run. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over the richer sibling set.

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