get_current_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful scoping (only running or paused activities) and the notion of elapsed time, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no activities are active, or how elapsed time is calculated. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 that front-loads the key action and scope. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), so the description doesn't need to be exhaustive. However, since there is no output schema, an agent might benefit from knowing what fields are returned (e.g., activity name, elapsed time). The description gives a high-level idea but leaves these details implicit. Overall, it is minimally sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for the single optional 'timezone' parameter, meeting the schema itself. The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already explains it fully. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Show'), the resource ('currently running or paused activities'), and the additional detail ('with elapsed time'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_activity_types (which lists activity types) and list_intervals (which lists historical intervals), so an agent can easily identify when to use this tool.

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 provides clear context: it is for viewing live activity state, not historical reports. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer when to use it. The lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance drops it from 5 to 4.

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