Get Timer Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (state and active task details), which enhances transparency beyond the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or 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?

For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (state and active task details). No missing context is evident, and the description is complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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, so the schema provides complete coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly avoids superfluous details.

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 the tool's purpose: checking the current timer state (running, paused, stopped) and details about the active task. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('timer status'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like timer_start or timer_pause which have different actions.

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 provides clear guidance to use this tool when the user wants to check timer status. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it, the context of sibling tools (e.g., timer_pause, timer_resume) implies this is for read-only queries. A slight improvement would be to mention that it does not modify the timer.

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