fusion_status

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, non-open-world read. The description adds useful scope by saying it checks both Fusion and the bridge add-in and reports the active document, but it does not describe failure modes or what happens when the bridge is unreachable.

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?

One compact sentence, with the core operation and diagnostic target front-loaded. Every clause contributes to the purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more of the return-value burden. It says the active document is reported but does not specify how reachability results are conveyed or what a failed check 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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful differentiator here. Baseline 4 is appropriate because there are no arguments whose meaning the description needs to clarify.

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 and resource: checking reachability of Fusion and the bridge add-in, and reporting the active document. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby diagnostic siblings such as fusion_check or fusion_inspect.

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 implies a diagnostic/preflight use case but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over fusion_check, fusion_inspect, or fusion_api. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions.

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