ketan_get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the exact data points returned, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. However, 'Get' and 'Returns' strongly imply a safe query, making this adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two succinct sentences, begins with the action ('Get'), and lists the output components without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 getter with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It lists the key fields returned and implies overall state reporting. It does not discuss prerequisites or failure modes, but none are obvious, so the description adequately supports the agent's decision to invoke the 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of the parameter space (which is empty). The description adds no parameter-specific information, and according to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as the 'current Ketan-OS ground-truth state report.' It enumerates the returned contents (step count, checkpoint count, CTG node/edge counts, failure count, workspace directory), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ketan_get_checkpoints or ketan_get_ctg that would provide more detailed but narrower information.

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 clearly implies this tool should be used when an agent needs an overview of the current Ketan-OS state. The context is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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