evolve_apply_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is fully consistent with a non-mutating status read. It adds value by specifying exactly what is shown, including configuration, queues, running applier, and recent passes, which goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the scope of the read.

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, compact sentence that leads with the action 'Show' and efficiently lists all status components without filler. Every phrase 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?

With an output schema present and readOnlyHint annotation covering safety, the description names all four status categories the tool exposes. Given the low complexity and zero parameters, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, so there is nothing for the description to document. The parameterless baseline of 4 applies, and the description makes no misleading parameter claims.

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 the specific verb 'Show', identifies the resource clearly as the evolve-applier, and enumerates exact status components: config, curator/evolve queues, running applier, and last 5 apply/recovery passes. This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like evolve_apply or evolve_mark_applied.

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 implies a diagnostic use case by listing what it displays, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to the many status-related sibling tools. An agent must infer from the name and content that this is the right tool for checking evolve-applier state.

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