projector_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool actually tests ADB and Fully Kiosk Browser connectivity, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not describe failure behavior, timeout characteristics, or what a successful status report contains.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds specific context about which connectivity layers are checked.

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 simple read-only diagnostic with no parameters and no annotations beyond readOnly/openWorld, the description is adequate but thin. It does not say what the status result includes (e.g., whether each connectivity layer reports connected/disconnected separately), which would help an agent interpret the output since no output schema exists.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline score of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check projector connection status') and adds what connectivity is tested (ADB and Fully Kiosk Browser). It is clearly a read-only diagnostic, distinguishable from siblings like projector_wake or projector_scan, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those 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?

Usage is implied by the diagnostic nature of the tool: an agent would call it to verify projector connectivity. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as whether to call projector_scan first or what to do if the check fails.

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