application.status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about compatibility checking and summarizing the session, but does not disclose anything beyond that, which is acceptable for a no-argument read-only status tool.

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?

A single sentence that opens with the action and the condition being checked. No filler or repeated schema 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?

For a no-argument status tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough to select and invoke correctly. The only slight gap is the unspecified meaning of 'compatible,' but the output schema can carry that detail.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The schema coverage is 100% because the input schema is empty; a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report'), names the resource ('compatible Blender MCP session'), and states the outcome ('whether ... running and summarize it'). This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like connection.ping (connection state) and project.status (project state).

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 intended use is implied: call this to check whether a compatible session is running before proceeding. However, the description never explicitly contrasts it with related siblings such as connection.ping or application.launch, and gives no when-not-to-use guidance.

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