xae_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: the auto-attach side effect, the fact that this call can establish the solution the other xae_* tools operate on, and the refusal semantics when no solution is open. What is missing is any indication of latency, failure modes, or cost of the attach step.

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 returned fields are front-loaded in a single dense line, followed by the attach caveat and the state glossary, so an agent gets the essentials immediately. The key/value phrasing ('solution_bound: ...', 'solution_mismatch / refused: ...') is terse but slightly telegraphic compared to prose.

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 an output schema present, the description is not obliged to explain return values, yet it still glosses the meaningful state names, and it covers the auto-attach behavior that an agent must anticipate. It is complete enough to call correctly; only a clearer tie-break against xae_attach and the diagnostic siblings would improve it.

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 the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends no space on parameter documentation and instead uses that room for return-state semantics.

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 first sentence enumerates exactly what the tool reports: shell version, open solution, projects, TwinCAT project name, target NetId, and started flag, which makes the resource and scope unmistakable. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like xae_attach or xae_dialogs, so an agent must infer that this is the passive state-read while xae_attach is the explicit attach action.

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 note that it 'attaches to the shell first if not attached yet (as every xae_* tool does)' implicitly tells the agent it need not call xae_attach beforehand. The solution_bound / solution_mismatch / refused / reattached vocabulary helps interpret results but does not state when this tool should be chosen over the siblings. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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