sdd-status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' and 'list' imply a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it describe the output format or behavior when the featureName doesn't exist. It adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately conveys both modes of operation, earning a perfect score for brevity and clarity.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main usage. However, it is slightly ambiguous whether 'list all features' returns full statuses or just feature names, and there's no mention of return details. Still, it is mostly complete for a low-complexity tool.

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% and the parameter is well-formed, but the description adds crucial semantics: providing featureName retrieves one status, omitting it lists all features. This clarifies the conditional behavior beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 'Get one feature status or list all features' uses specific verbs (get/list) and clearly identifies the resource (feature status). It distinguishes between two modes of operation and stands apart from sibling tools like sdd-requirements or sdd-implement, which focus on other phases.

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 clearly implies when to use it: to retrieve status for a single feature or all features. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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