startup_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral detail about the return format ('str: JSON {ok, installed, details, task_name}'), which is not captured by annotations. No additional context such as auth requirements, but the return format disclosure goes beyond 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 description is two short sentences that front-load the purpose and include a compact return format. No wasted words; every sentence contributes.

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?

This is a simple 0-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and an output schema. The description clearly explains what it does and its return shape, making it complete for an interaction model. No further elaboration is necessary.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('the boot-startup scheduled task'), and specifies what it reports (installed status and state). This distinguishes it from siblings like install_startup and uninstall_startup, which perform different actions.

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 usage for checking startup task status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., install_startup/uninstall_startup). No mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so the guidance is merely implied.

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