spawn_savi_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source (the open play session from spawn_play_open), that no API endpoint exposes this, and that attribution does not exist. It does not state what happens if no play session is open or otherwise confirm read-only safety explicitly.

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?

Front-loaded with the answer to 'what does this return' before the routing advice, and the wisps/flames mapping is a useful concrete detail. It is somewhat long for a status tool, with the idle-lane rationale running several sentences, but little is pure filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior — and it does, explaining the lane model, the source session, and the attribution limitation. The exact return shape (count plus per-agent task text) is only implied rather than spelled out.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter meaning to add and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is callable with no arguments.

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 resource and scope — how many sub-agents Savi is running and what they are doing — with a concrete mechanism (the eight fan-out lanes). It is clearly distinguished from the adjacent siblings spawn_savi (which spawns), spawn_status, and spawn_play_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 names the call sites: before spawn_savi to size a handoff, and after one to confirm pickup. It also tells the agent what to do with the result (free lanes mean delegate a broader slice), which is actionable routing rather than vague advice.

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