vibe_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check' and 'learning gate' strongly imply a read-only status query, and the enumerated return fields give real insight into what state is reported. However, it never explicitly states that the call is side-effect free, nor does it cover auth, initialization prerequisites, or error behavior when no project session exists.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the state listing comes before the call-timing guidance. The 'VibeWise:' branding prefix is minor noise, but otherwise every clause carries information and there is no redundancy.

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 status tool with one optional parameter, the description does the heavy lifting by naming the fields the agent will receive instead of relying on an output schema. The remaining gap is the absence of any note about behavior when the project is uninitialized or the session is inactive.

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%, and the single projectPath parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'for this project' only loosely gestures at the parameter and adds no path semantics, defaults, or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a clear verb ('check') and a specific resource ('the learning gate for this project'), then enumerates the exact state it surfaces: active mode, checkpoint stage, pending decision, and next required action. This distinguishes it from action siblings like vibe_start, vibe_checkpoint, and vibe_confirm. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

It states a concrete trigger: 'Call this before starting any coding work and whenever unsure whether coding is allowed.' That is an unusually explicit when-to-use cue. It does not, however, say when NOT to call it or contrast it with siblings such as vibe_read_notes, so it lacks the exclusion/alternative half of a top score.

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