wirk_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses 'Writes nothing' which is a key read-only trait, but it omits other relevant behaviors such as permission requirements, response size limits (implied by max_bytes), or rate limits. A score of 3 reflects some useful disclosure but incomplete transparency.

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 short, front-loaded fragment list beginning with 'Start here.' It is concise and avoids waste, though the single run-on sentence could be better structured for scannability. Every phrase earns its place by conveying purpose and scope.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and read-only behavior reasonably well, but it does not explain the response format, the effect of max_bytes, or how workspace_id and format interact. The 75% schema coverage fills some gaps, but the description leaves a quarter of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, and the one undocumented parameter (max_bytes) is not compensated for. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states the tool provides a status overview: who you work for, your work, what's in progress, what needs review, and recent changes. It is specific enough to identify the resource, and 'Writes nothing' hints at read-only. However, it does not name or contrast with sibling tools like wirk_query or wirk_show, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

The opening 'Start here' gives clear contextual guidance for when to use this tool as the entry point. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the implied first-step role is strong. No explicit when-not guidance is present.

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