doc_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so well by framing the tool as a pure report and listing the three checks it performs, which implicitly signals a non-mutating status operation. It could be more explicit about having no side effects, but 'Report whether' plus the enumerated checks provides strong transparency.

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 front-loaded sentence followed by a compact colon-separated list. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 an output schema available, the description covers what the tool reports, when it is relevant, and which aspects are checked. It could have explicitly instructed the agent to call it before search_docs, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information needed in the description, and the description does not attempt to add any because none is required.

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 ('Report') and a specific subject ('whether documentation search is usable right now'), then enumerates the scope: asset presence, bridge path, and Xcode approval. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_docs and list_frameworks, which perform different actions.

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 phrase 'usable right now' makes it clear this is a readiness/precondition check, so an agent understands to call it when it needs to verify documentation search is available before searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended timing is unambiguous.

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