Check the Stript app status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that it 'consumes no evaluation document and changes nothing,' providing domain-specific reassurance and clarifying side effects beyond the 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 exactly two sentences: the first enumerates the specific checks performed, the second gives usage guidance and side-effect confirmation. Every sentence carries meaningful content with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having zero parameters, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and its side-effect-free nature. An output schema exists, so return value details are already structured and do not need to be repeated in the description.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline score of 4 applies as there is nothing to clarify.

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 checks whether the Stript desktop app is running with AI integrations enabled, which license tier is active, and how many Free Evaluation documents remain. This specific enumeration of checks distinguishes it from sibling tools like stript_anonymize_file or stript_restore.

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 explicitly instructs to call it 'before anonymizing when the state is unclear,' providing a clear use case. It doesn't enumerate alternatives or exclusion cases, but the guidance is sufficient for a read-only status check.

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