mplus_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of signaling behavior. 'Report' plus the listed outputs implies a read-only diagnostic operation, and the note about installation-related failures gives useful execution context. It does not detail output formatting or authorization needs, but for a zero-argument status tool this is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool reports, the second states when to call it. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 zero-argument diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the return categories (executable, version, demo limits) and the recommended invocation context. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies because the absence of parameters makes schema coverage complete by vacuity.

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 names a specific verb ('Report'), a clear resource ('Mplus executable'), and the exact aspects reported (version, demo-version limits). It is clearly distinct from all siblings, which are about syntax, running, output parsing, and savedata — none overlap with environment/status inspection.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition and ordering: 'Call this first when a run fails for reasons that look like the installation rather than the model.' It does not list when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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