herdr_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating what the snapshot contains (focused ids, counts by status, live agent locations), which is the behavioral detail an agent needs to know before calling.

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?

One sentence of content plus a two-word directive, both front-loaded with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only overview tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and when to reach for it. It could be slightly stronger on how it relates to herdr_agents, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single optional workspace_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no scoping detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb-less but concrete resource: a condensed session snapshot listing focused ids, counts by status, and live agents with locations. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the overlapping sibling herdr_agents, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Start here" is an explicit directive telling the agent this is the orientation call before drilling into specific agents, panes, or workspaces. It gives clear usage context but names no exclusions or alternative tool for the same information.

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