get_agent_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions return fields (success, agent, session_active, error) but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, or error handling. Critically, it describes caller_agent_id as '必須' (required) while the schema marks it optional with a default of null, creating a contradiction. This misleads the agent about parameter requirements.

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 short and directly states the purpose and parameters. It is front-loaded with the action statement. However, it includes a structured docstring format (Args:/Returns:) which, while clear, takes up space that could be more concise prose. Overall, it is efficient with no extraneous information.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere) and the relatively simple tool (2 params), the description is adequate but lacks important context such as when the tool is needed (e.g., before sending commands to an agent), error conditions, or preconditions (e.g., agent must exist). It does not address potential error responses beyond mentioning 'error' in returns.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It provides Japanese labels for both parameters, but agent_id is just 'エージェントID' (agent ID) and caller_agent_id is '呼び出し元エージェントID' (caller agent ID) with a misleading requirement tag. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the parameter names and contains a factual error about requiredness.

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 clearly states '指定エージェントの詳細ステータスを取得する' (Get detailed status of specified agent), which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_agents (listing all agents) and get_task (retrieving a specific task), though not 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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the tool name and purpose, but no context or exclusions are given.

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