bicameral_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful ordering context ('Call first') and implies a read-only, current-state snapshot, but it does not explicitly disclose safety, side effects, or consequences of calling, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 extremely compact and every word adds information: what is reported and the recommended call order. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It conveys the essential categories and the 'call first' guidance, though 'history' could be slightly more specific.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to clarify parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing parameter-related for the description to add.

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 indicates this tool reports current environmental state: backends, sign-in status, available editor models, and history. It is understandable for a status tool, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like bicameral_check or bicameral_stats.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to 'Call first', which gives clear usage context as an initial discovery step. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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