grove_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds real value by stating locality and that nothing is sent to GitHub or any other service, which is a privacy guarantee not expressed in the annotations. The 'scans are read-only' clause is slightly tangential for a status tool but reinforces the no-egress posture.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is reported, then the usage cue, then the safety posture. No filler, though the phrase about scans is mildly out of place in a status description.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so by enumerating the four reported fields. Combined with annotations covering safety and a zero-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and adds no misleading input expectations.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names the exact contents returned: version, data directory, database path, and project count. This clearly separates a status/environment probe from the data-oriented siblings like grove_project_list or grove_knowledge_get, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use it first to confirm which Grove home this session is using' gives explicit ordering guidance and the intent behind calling it. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming alternatives, but for a zero-parameter ambient tool the context is clear enough.

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