swg_status

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the specific states reported (coordinator on/off/unknown, per-path enforced/not_registered, etc.) and explicitly lists limitations (e.g., 'Out of guarantee and NOT detected in v1: ...'). No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense and contains many technical details (fields, limitations). While front-loaded with 'Report coherence state', it could be more concise. The structure is somewhat fragmented with commas and semicolons.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (coordination state, per-path status, attachment/degradation, session ID, etc.) and covers limitations. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's purpose.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter semantics but explains the output, which is not directly relevant to this dimension.

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 starts with 'Report coherence state', a clear verb+resource combination. It lists specific fields and constraints, and it is distinct from sibling tools like swg_read, swg_write, etc., which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'SINGLE-HOST only' as a constraint but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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