typora_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only inspection operation and lists the observable data, but it does not mention behavior when Typora is not running, potential permission issues, or whether the returned state is a snapshot or streaming value.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs the key detail list into a parenthetical. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid inventory of returned fields and scope (Windows). It could be slightly more complete by stating explicitly that it returns a snapshot and what happens if Typora is not running, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to invoke it appropriately.

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)Skip explanation? No, need justification. The input schema is emptyched, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, and it does not.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('live running state of Typora on Windows'), then enumerates exactly what is included (process IDs, active documents/folders, memory usage, installation path, app version). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling action and reading tools, which focus on opening, creating, or retrieving specific resources.

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 its usage: call this when you need to observe the current running state of Typora. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that it is not for opening, creating, or configuring Typora.

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