app_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Return', but does not state permissions, whether it runs on a specific device, how the optional serial parameter affects behavior, or what happens on failure.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple status lookup, though it is arguably too terse to be fully useful.

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?

The tool has two parameters and no annotations, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not required. However, the description omits guidance on the serial parameter, usage context, and behavioral constraints, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It only indirectly references the required package parameter and gives no explanation of the optional serial parameter or its default/null behavior.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it returns package, pid, and running status for a package. This distinguishes it from broad listing tools like list_packages, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_package_info or other status-related siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_package_info, list_processes, or get_state. The description merely states what is returned and leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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