spawn_client_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: sessions self-expire at their ttl, remaining TTL is reported, and an expired session is the common cause of no_live_room. It stops short of stating that the call is strictly read-only/polling and whether it has side effects, but the reporting framing makes the safe-read nature reasonably clear.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the decision question and then the actionable routing advice. The rhetorical opening costs a few words, but nothing is filler and the trailing guidance is the highest-value content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the returned fields (pid, world, connection phase, entity id, remaining TTL), which is exactly what an agent needs to consume a status report. Combined with the failure-mode routing, nothing essential is missing for a simple two-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (session, projectDir) are already documented with defaults, and the schema itself explains that a session self-expires at its ttl. The description reinforces the TTL concept but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('reports each session's pid, world, connection phase, entity id and REMAINING TTL') and answers the question the tool exists for (is a body standing and for how long). This is unmistakably distinct from spawn_client_join, spawn_client_leave, and the generic spawn_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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call it ('Check it before spawn_exec / spawn_logs when they answer no_live_room'), diagnoses the usual cause (expired session), and prescribes the remedy (join again rather than debug the endpoint). Both the trigger condition and the follow-up action are given.

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