Golden Thread Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the three registration steps (Knots), position affecting Strand milestones, and the L0/authentication access split. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds relevant program mechanics and access details. Each sentence contributes useful context, though the explanation of Strand milestones could be slightly tighter.

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 no-argument, read-only status tool, the description covers what the tool returns, access requirements, and program mechanics. With no output schema provided, it does not specify the exact response shape, but the description gives enough functional detail for selection and invocation.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on return-level semantics rather than parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a clear resource ('status of ~Alter's agent registration program (the Golden Thread)'). It states exactly what information is available: number of joined agents, own position if enrolled, and how to start. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_network_stats or thread_census.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to see...' and gives access context ('Free L0 to view; authentication needed to participate'). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but it provides enough context for an agent to recognize the appropriate situation.

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