ce_status

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

No annotations provided. The description transparently states the tool's actions (check reachability, report version), which is sufficient for a non-destructive status operation. No side effects implied.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose adequately. It could optionally clarify what the output looks like, but the information provided is minimally sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist; the description adds no parameter information, but this is expected since the schema has 100% coverage with an empty object. Baseline score of 4 applies.

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 bridge reachability and reports Cheat Engine version, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform memory operations, code execution, or table management.

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 implies use when verifying connectivity or version, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance. Given the tool's simplicity, the implied usage is clear.

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