status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the three categories of information returned (health, buffer stats, daemon status), but says nothing about whether it is side-effect free, whether it requires a live connection, or what happens when the session is stale.

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 substantive sentence is front-loaded and earns its place. The trailing 'Args:' block is slightly heavy for a single optional parameter, but it is compact and does not bury the main point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the one optional parameter is documented. The remaining gap is routing guidance within the sibling set, which is a usage concern more than a completeness one.

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 0% and the schema only shows a nullable string with a null default. The description compensates by explaining the sole parameter's meaning and its default-to-active-session behavior, which an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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 gives a specific imperative verb ('Check') and enumerates the concrete resources inspected: connection health, buffer statistics, and background daemon status. This is far more informative than the bare name 'status', though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like read_buffer or list_sessions that also surface buffer/session state.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. In a toolset with 11 siblings, that omission leaves the agent to guess whether status is a prerequisite check, a diagnostic, or a substitute for read_buffer.

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