cocomo_status

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Get') but, with no annotations, does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, if it has side effects, or if authentication is needed. It provides the expected output fields but lacks detailed behavioral context.

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 extraneous words, efficiently communicating purpose and key output fields.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by naming specific return fields. However, it could mention whether a session must be active or what happens when no session exists.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter info since none exist.

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 states the verb 'Get', the resource 'Cocomo session status', and lists specific included fields (current bet, streak, total profit). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like cocomo_init or dalembert_status.

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 implies usage for retrieving Cocomo session status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus other status tools (e.g., dalembert_status) or mention prerequisites like an initialized session.

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