spawn_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that env is masked, that remote fetch depends on credentials, and reports conflict receipts and docs presence. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool performs any writes or the exact response structure, leaving slight ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs meaningful detail without fluff. It efficiently lists the key output categories and the credential condition, making it easy to parse in one line.

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?

For a status tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the returned data points: env (masked), base version, conflict receipts, docs present, and head/published version comparison. It covers the essential information an agent needs to know what this tool returns, though it omits potential error scenarios or file paths.

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% for both parameters (remote, projectDir), and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool reports local project status plus optional remote head/published versions, and enumerates specific data items (env, base version, conflict receipts, docs present). It distinguishes from siblings like spawn_play_status by specifying 'local project' and remote version details, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not name alternative tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'when credentials allow' for remote versions, which is a credential condition, not a usage guideline. It does not say when to prefer spawn_play_status or other sibling tools.

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