agent_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It accurately signals a read-only observation tool and reveals data sources (sessions.json, JSONL, gateway/command/heartbeat logs), but it does not explicitly state that no state is modified or describe output/error behavior.

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?

A one-line summary followed by five tightly scoped bullets. Every bullet names a view and its core deliverable, and there is no filler or repeated schema detail.

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?

Given the multi-view complexity and absence of an output schema or annotations, the description covers the key decision points: what each view returns and the underlying data sources. Minor omissions like response shapes and explicit read-only confirmation keep it just short of complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds view-level meaning but does not provide parameter semantics beyond what the schema, enums, and defaults already encode.

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 opening sentence names a concrete resource ('agent observation') and a specific composition verb ('consolidates'), and each bullet defines a distinct view. The set of observation views clearly separates it from sibling action tools like agent_dispatch and agent_control.

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 view list provides clear context for when to call this tool: health, sessions, actions, logs, or history are all routed here. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools for competing cases, but the consolidated-scope framing makes the intended use clear.

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