Perch CLI & server status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the check runs locally and costs no model call, which is the key operational fact for an agent deciding whether to probe first.

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?

Two tight clauses: what it returns, then when to call it. The cost note ('no model call') is front-loaded alongside the capability, and no sentence is 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?

For a zero-param, no-output-schema probe, the description covers what is inspected and when to use it. It stops short of describing the result shape or what state means 'not ready' (e.g., whether an unsigned CLI is a hard blocker), which would fully close the loop for an agent gating a delegation.

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; the schema is empty and fully consistent with the description.

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 precisely what the tool reports: perch CLI presence, sign-in state, and this server's live job list. That enumeration of returned facts distinguishes it from perch_job_status (single-job) and delegate_to_perch (work dispatch) without needing the schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit call condition — 'Call before delegating if unsure the worker is ready' — which ties it directly to delegate_to_perch. It does not state when to skip it (e.g., if readiness is already known), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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