status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Show' aligns with those. It adds the scoping detail that the tool covers runbook and receipt status, but offers no deeper behavioral context beyond that.

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 and front-loads the action. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves out important parameter semantics.

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?

With one optional parameter left unexplained and no output schema, the description is too thin for confident invocation. It also fails to clarify what 'status' includes or how the 'root' parameter changes results.

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 has one undocumented parameter 'root' with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent has no way to infer what 'root' means or how it affects the status lookup.

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 a specific action ('Show') and names two resources ('runbook and receipt status'), so an agent can understand the basic purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like watcher_status, which slightly weakens clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as watcher_status or fetch_receipt. No context is given for when it is appropriate, and no exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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