tunnel_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains what the tool returns (role, goal, members, etc.) and the verb 'inspect' suggests a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or mention any side effects, which would be ideal.

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 sentence that lists all relevant components of the session. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, covering all fields. No additional information is needed for an agent to understand its function.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information; the baseline score of 4 is appropriate given no parameters 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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and resource 'current session', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tunnel_close or tunnel_open. It lists all inspected aspects (role, goal, members roster, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 checking session state, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any conditions or prerequisites. No exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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