cw_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it implies a read-only probe by 'Check' and indicates it reports host, supported transports and a recommendation. It does not state that it is side-effect-free, cheap, or cached (the 3 s cache is only visible in the schema), nor does it sketch the shape of the response.

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 short sentences with the core check front-loaded and the imperative 'Run this first' closing it out; there is essentially no filler. The phrase 'and what to use' is slightly vague but not wasteful.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema discovery tool the description does say what information comes back (host, transport support, recommendation), which is the essential part. It leaves the agent guessing about safety, cost, and the exact result format, which matters when there is no output schema to lean on.

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 coverage is 100% with a single optional 'refresh' flag already documented in the schema, so the structured field does the work. The description never mentions the refresh/cache behavior, adding nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 ('Check') and resource ('SONAR host, which automation transports this build supports'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby diagnostic siblings such as cw_doctor, cw_command_support, or cw_mixer_support, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

'Run this first' is a concrete ordering instruction that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to everything else. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer cw_doctor or cw_midi_status instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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