status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description confirms the resource scope (daemon + session) but adds little else. It doesn't disclose what the status output includes, whether it reflects lease states, or any side effects (though none expected). This is minimal but not contradictory.

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 concise—a single noun phrase. It's front-loaded and contains no filler. While it's under-specified, it's not verbose. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though it could be slightly more descriptive.

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 simple read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't state what information is returned (e.g., daemon health, session state), nor does it mention behavior with leased sessions. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minimal gap, so a 3 is fair.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters (lease and session) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, leaving the schema to carry the semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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 identifies the resource (daemon and session) and the operation (status). It's distinct from sibling tools like start/stop which are actions, and status is the only one in its group. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'status' includes, so it's clear but not fully specific.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when a status check is appropriate, nor does it contrast with other tools. An agent must infer that status is for checking daemon/session state, but there's no explicit instruction.

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