typora_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by spelling out exactly what facets the inspection covers, which effectively substitutes for the absent output schema. It still omits practical traits such as whether it spawns/contacts the bridge, latency, or error behavior when Typora is not running.

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 front-loaded sentence with a verb-first construction and a compact comma-delimited list of inspected facets. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete for a zero-argument diagnostic: the enumeration of inspected facets tells the agent what it will learn. A brief note on the relationship to typora_bridge_status (or behavior when Typora is not running) would close the remaining gap.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter semantics are needed and none are omitted.

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 a specific verb (inspect) and enumerates concrete resources: Typora processes, CDP connectivity, renderer windows, current file, and latest debug event sequence. This is far more specific than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from the similar sibling typora_bridge_status, leaving the agent to infer which status tool to pick.

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 enumerated contents imply a diagnostic/preflight use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of typora_bridge_status as the alternative, and no statement of when not to call it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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