hai_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a read-oriented query ('Return'), indicates only ACTIVE lanes are included, and hints at optional project-specific behavior; however it does not state side effects, permissions, or null-handling 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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('ACTIVE', 'focus', 'inbox count', 'optional project next-step flags') carries semantic content.

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?

For a simple status-read tool with an output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the main return surface. It falls short on situating the tool among 22 siblings and on spelling out the effect of project_path, so it is only minimally 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?

The schema provides only a nullable project_path with a default of null. The description adds that this parameter is optional and related to project next-step flags, which is genuinely useful. It still does not explain path format or exactly how absent versus present values change the response.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and concrete resource components ('ACTIVE lanes, focus, inbox count, and optional project next-step flags'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as hai_health or hai_get_next_step, so it misses the top-level differentiator.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call hai_status instead of one of its many siblings. The description implies a status-overview use case but never states conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving routing to inference.

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