scratchjr_status

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral value by stating the tool does not launch the app and provides a 'live' status check, which is extra context beyond what annotations convey. This is useful and not contradictory.

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 10-word sentence that is fully front-loaded with the main action ('Check') and includes only essential qualifiers. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and key behavioral characteristic.

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 status-check tool with no parameters, annotations, or output schema, the description communicates purpose and a key side-effect detail. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., what the status looks like—boolean, string, or details), which would be helpful for an agent to interpret the result. This is a minor but real gap.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Per the calibration baseline, a 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools—the description correctly omits parameter details and focuses on the tool's action.

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 ('Check') and resource ('live ScratchJr connection') and adds the qualifier 'without launching the app,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling scratchjr_connect. An agent can immediately understand the tool's scope and how it differs from other connection-related operations.

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 'without launching the app' implies this is a safe, lightweight check that can be performed anytime, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'use this instead of' guidance. The distinction from scratchjr_connect is implied rather than stated, so the usage context is present but not fully explicit.

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