wip_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Snapshot' implies a read-only, point-in-time view, and the description explicitly notes that agent_id=None returns all agents. However, it does not disclose whether the snapshot is cached, how capacity is calculated, or what fields are returned.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, and the parameter explanation is minimal and clear. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It explains the only parameter and the core behavior. It could add a bit more context around what 'agent_capacity' means, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'agent_id: Filter to one agent (None = all)' adds the crucial meaning that null is not just a default but selects all agents. This goes beyond the schema's title and default value.

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 states the tool returns a 'Snapshot of agent_capacity', which identifies both the resource (agent capacity) and the operation (status snapshot). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling status tools like milestone_status or codesweep_status, so it falls short of full differentiation, but the resource focus makes it clear among siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains the agent_id filtering behavior, which is parameter-level usage, not tool-level selection guidance. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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