lsl_reference_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds some context about the reported dimensions (coverage, revisions, manual review dates), but does not explain what 'source-scoped' means or how the report is triggered.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, stating the report content directly. 'Source-scoped' is slightly opaque but does not make the sentence wasteful.

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 (no parameters, rich annotations, output schema present), so the description carries a lighter burden. However, the central qualifier 'source-scoped' is unexplained and no alternative routing is provided, leaving an agent unsure about when this report is the right choice over lsl_search_reference or lsl_check_code.

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?

With zero parameters, there is no parameter semantics burden; the baseline is 4. The only minor friction is that the phrase 'source-scoped' could momentarily suggest an argument, but the empty schema makes the no-argument nature clear.

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 names a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource set ('source-scoped reference coverage, revisions and manual review dates'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like lsl_search_reference or lsl_lookup_symbol. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus lsl_search_reference, lsl_lookup_symbol, or lsl_check_code, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent is left to infer the use case from the purpose phrase alone.

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