tidal_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a critical non-obvious side effect: in GHCi mode the call starts Tidal if it isn't running, making this not a pure read. It also says the report reflects whether Tidal actually starts. Missing are auth requirements, blocking/timeout behavior, and failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the returned-fields list, then adds the side-effect caveat and usage cue. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the long comma-separated enumeration reads like a field dump rather than prose.

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-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the returned information and the important side effect, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. It stops short of describing error/response shape or what a healthy vs unhealthy report looks like.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify or omit.

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 ('Check') and resource ('the server's setup') and then enumerates the exact facets inspected: mode, ghci/boot file as resolved, Tidal running state and version, control port, last error, log location. That enumeration clearly separates it from siblings like tidal_get_state (musical/pattern state) without needing to name them.

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?

Provides one usage cue — 'Use it when something doesn't work' — which implies a diagnostic role, but names no alternative tools (e.g. tidal_get_state, tidal_eval) and gives no when-not condition. Usage is implied rather than scoped.

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