get_merge_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only by saying 'show', but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or error scenarios. It describes output statuses but is vague on non-existent namespace 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?

The description is concise, with a clear one-line summary, bullet list of possible statuses, and separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 an output schema (implied by 'Returns: List of config statuses'), the description adequately covers the output with example statuses. It explains the two parameters and their purpose, making it sufficiently complete for a simple status-check tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds meaningful context for both parameters ('namespace: Profile namespace', 'project_root: Project root for project-relative targets'). This adds value beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 shows merge status for all configs in a profile. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'apply_merge' and 'preview_merge'.

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 explains what the tool reports (pending, merged, changed) and lists required args, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'detect_current_configs' or 'preview_merge'. Usage is implied but not stated.

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