Check AGY project status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by stating that the tool does not invoke a model, which is useful for cost and side-effect expectations. It does not mention output format or error behavior, but for a simple read-only state check this is acceptable.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes an important behavioral disclaimer. Every word contributes value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, rich annotations, and a clearly scoped purpose. However, the description never mentions what the tool returns or how the result is relayed to the agent. Since no output schema exists, describing the return value would materially improve completeness, but the current text is sufficient to understand the tool's place in a workflow.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description bears little parameter burden. The single parameter, project_root, is already well-described in the schema as an absolute root directory. The description's phrase 'one exact project root' only slightly reinforces the expectation without adding new syntax, format, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 ('Check') and resource ('whether one exact project root is initialized, trusted, read-authorized, and linked to an active AGY conversation'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings that list sessions, runs, or perform model-calling actions. The explicit note 'Does not call a model' further differentiates it from AI-invoking tools like ask/continue/review.

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 implies usage: run this before AGY operations requiring an active project. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention alternative tools for related checks. It provides context but no direct guidance or exclusions.

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