sc_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Query' implies a read-only operation, but no details about return format, error behavior, or requirements (e.g., files must be in source control) are disclosed. The description adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 a single concise sentence, directly front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no unnecessary wording, making it efficient.

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?

Although the tool is simple and the schema covers the parameter, there is no output schema and no annotation context. The description does not explain what kind of status values will be returned, what happens for non-existent files, or any other behavioral expectations, leaving a significant information gap.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'paths' parameter, including a description of allowed path formats. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema fully compensates.

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 'Query source control status of file(s)' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sc_checkout or sc_checkin, which perform actions rather than queries.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and sibling list imply it is for checking status before source control operations, the description does not explicitly state any context or exclusions.

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