quillbot_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description usefully reinforces this by stating it opens no browser and sends no text, making the purely local, offline nature concrete. It does not, however, say what state information is actually reported.

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 short sentences with no filler, front-loading the identity of the tool before the no-side-effects note. Every phrase carries information.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description should say what "estado" means (readiness, config, version, errors). As written, an agent cannot tell what it will receive back, leaving a real gap for a status-check tool.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

"Estado local del adaptador" names a resource (the adapter) and a verb (report state), but the description largely restates the tool name (quillbot_status) in Spanish. It does not distinguish this from quillbot_inspect, which an agent could reasonably read as another status/inspection tool.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or condition for choosing this over quillbot_inspect, quillbot_detect, or quillbot_humanize. The closest thing, "No abre navegador ni envía texto," describes behavior rather than when the agent should call it.

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