coordination_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output (reports not initialized) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, has side effects, or how it handles errors. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise with one short sentence. It wastes no words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., front-loading key info) and could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Still, it earns a high score for brevity.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of information. It covers the basic purpose but omits details such as the return format, when it is called, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a simple status tool, this is minimally adequate but not complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description need not add parameter meaning. Schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no need for additional parameter semantics.

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's action: reporting that Wolbarg is not initialized for the workspace root. It uses a specific verb (reports) and resource (initialization status), making its purpose clear. However, it may be too narrow by implying it always reports 'not initialized' rather than the general 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wolbarg_init_required' or 'workspace_briefing'. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate invocation.

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