humanize_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of revealing behavior. The use of 'Report' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention any side effects or required preconditions, but for a simple status query this is sufficient.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary detail or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 straightforward status-check tool, the description is complete. It tells the user exactly what the tool does (report humanize status) and for which scope (current session). No additional context is required to use the tool correctly.

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 description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. The schema already describes both optional parameters (lease and session) with clear explanations. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: reporting whether humanize mode is on for the current session. It uses the specific verb 'Report' and identifies both the resource (humanize) and the scope (current session), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like humanize_on and humanize_off.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implicitly a status check before enabling or disabling humanize mode, it lacks direct guidance on when to prefer it over humanize_on or humanize_off. The context is clear but the guidance is not provided.

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