get_python_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so 'Changes nothing' is largely redundant, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior: it evaluates sys.version when Python is initialized and returns an empty python_version otherwise, implying it actually executes interpreter code. That nuance is not derivable from the annotations.

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 usage precondition is front-loaded and the two sentences are information-dense. The explicit 'Returns:' line partially restates fields an agent would see anyway and slightly inflates length, but nothing is materially wasted.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (engine_version, module_loaded, python_available, python_configured, python_initialized, interpreter_path, python_version). Combined with the precondition and behavior notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this zero-arg status tool.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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?

It names a specific verb (reports) and resource (editor Python plugin status) and enumerates the distinct states it inspects: loaded, available, configured, initialized, plus interpreter path and engine version. An agent can distinguish this from other diagnostic tools such as get_engine_info or editor_status without opening a schema.

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?

It states when to use it explicitly ('check it before execute_python or execute_python_file'), naming the exact sibling tools it gates. This is a clear precondition with a named alternative set rather than a vague 'use this to check things'.

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