dashclaw_work_order_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the non-destructive read nature and lists what is returned. However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or side effects (likely none).

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action 'Check a DashClaw work order' followed by concise enumeration of outputs.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main outputs adequately. It could benefit from noting the read-only nature or mentioning error scenarios, but overall it is complete enough.

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% with a clear description for the single parameter work_order_id. The main description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool checks a DashClaw work order and lists specific outputs: lifecycle status, worker, guard decision, and self-verifying receipt. Verb 'Check' and resource 'DashClaw work order' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like dashclaw_work_order_submit (submit) and dashclaw_status (general status).

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?

Description implies usage after submission ('once terminal') but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like dashclaw_status. No exclusions or contextual guidance beyond the basic purpose.

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