inkscape_status

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value beyond that by disclosing that filesystem paths are not exposed and that security posture is included. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, giving the agent useful behavioral context.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and outcome, with no filler. Every element adds information about scope, output, or security. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and there are no parameters, the description covers the key aspects: availability, capabilities, security posture, and path redaction. It does not explicitly mention when to call it, but for a status tool this is self-evident. Slightly more could be said about the typical usage order, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description has no parameter meanings to add. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter talk. No gaps here.

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 states a specific verb ('Reports') and resource ('local Inkscape availability, observed capabilities and security posture') and clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on document/element operations. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a read-only status check that would precede Inkscape-dependent operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or name alternatives (though none exist). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but explicit guidance about 'use before any Inkscape operation' is missing.

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