status

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

With no annotations, the description does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or other side effects, but the term 'status' and the listed observation categories suggest a non-mutating overview. It does not describe output format or potential delays, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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, compact sentence with a colon-separated list. Every word contributes; no 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?

For a no-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the data categories returned. It lacks explicit usage notes, but that's covered elsewhere. It's appropriately complete for its simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is inherently complete. The description adds no parameter semantics but none are needed. Baseline 4 applies.

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 identifies the tool as providing pipeline status and enumerates specific components (inbox queue, watcher activity, recent clips, log tail). This distinguishes it from siblings like process_folder or list_clips, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'display'.

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 usage guidance is provided; it's implied that this is for checking overall pipeline health rather than using specific getter tools. There's no exclusion or alternative mention, so it's merely implied.

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