dsh_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It notably discloses that the operation is a read-only verification and does not submit work, which is the most important side-effect information. It does not describe output format or failure modes, but for a zero-parameter status check the core behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable behavioral clarification. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is verified and what is not done. It is slightly incomplete in not distinguishing from sibling status tools, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 zero parameters and the schema already reflects that with an empty properties object. Because there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies and the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics.

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 verb, 'Verify', and names the target resource: the configured DSH Web process and authenticated session/list. It also adds a distinguishing negative scope, 'Does not submit work', which separates it from submission-oriented siblings. However, it does not clearly differentiate itself from other status/session tools like codex_status or dsh_sessions.

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 indicates that the tool is for verification of DSH Web process and session state, and it explicitly states this tool does not submit work. That provides a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use signal. It stops short of naming alternative tools or giving explicit routing conditions relative to status/session siblings.

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