Check Illustrator connection and list open documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the launching behavior, which is important, and notes it reports version and document summary. However, it does not specify whether launching Illustrator has side effects, requires user interaction, or what happens if Illustrator is already running. The 'launching it if needed' hint is valuable but could be more transparent about consequences.

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 sentence that is concise and efficient, stating the primary action and expected output. It is not overly verbose, but it could be slightly front-loaded with the core purpose (status check) before mentioning the launch behavior, though the current order is still logical and readable.

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 status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics: connection, launch, version, and document summary. However, it lacks details on return format, potential failure modes, or side effects, which are important for an agent to use it correctly. Given the low complexity, the description is adequate but not complete enough to fully guide an agent without extra context.

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 0 parameters, and the schema has no properties, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameters, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool. It adds context about what the status check includes, which is useful beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states the tool connects to Illustrator, launches it if needed, and reports version and open documents. It is specific about the verb 'connects' and the resource 'Illustrator' and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status rather than document operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like illustrator_document_info, which might also report document info, leading to slight ambiguity.

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 this is for checking connection and status, which is useful before performing other operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like illustrator_document_info. There is no mention of when not to use it, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit rather than clearly defined.

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