agenthop_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the data actually returned (step, pairing code, log path, identity, inbox, invitations), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 single dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose (conversation state) before the secondary machine-identity data. Every clause carries information, though the semicolon-joined list is compressed.

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 content and does so reasonably well, covering both conversation and machine-level state. Complete enough for an agent to know what a call yields.

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 per the rubric this earns the baseline 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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?

States a specific verb ("Show") and enumerates the distinct resources it surfaces: current step, pairing code, log location, machine identity, inbox, and pending invitations. This clearly separates it from siblings like agenthop_contacts or agenthop_wait, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is only implied – the framing "where the current conversation is" suggests consulting it for state checks, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or comparison to siblings such as agenthop_wait or agenthop_contacts. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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