data_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the load and does it: it declares the read-only contract ('Reads files only; runs nothing') and explains the comparison logic against the latest run, which is the key behavioral trait. It omits cost/latency considerations for hashing large file sets.

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 core output (hashes, latest-run comparison, staleness) is front-loaded, and the trailing 'Reads files only; runs nothing' earns its place as a safety signal. The parenthetical is slightly dense but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still covers read-only behavior, scope, and the staleness interpretation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 single `step` parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Only this step (default: all)'), and the description's 'every step's input and output files' corroborates the all-steps default. That is baseline-level value, no additional semantics about step identifiers or scoping.

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 the concrete resource precisely: SHA-256 hashes of each step's input/output files, the hashes the latest run used, and which inputs changed since. That is a specific, unambiguous verb+resource pair an agent can distinguish from siblings like list_runs or run_log, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Implies the decision it supports -- 'which inputs changed since (so the step is stale and should be re-run)' -- giving the agent a clear trigger for calling it before re-running or sweeping. It also closes off misuse with 'reads files only; runs nothing', though it never names run_step or list_runs as the alternative actions.

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