NVDA status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the useful behavioral framing that this is a health/diagnostic probe and that isControlAllowed gates key injection. The one gap is that it doesn't say what happens when NVDA is unreachable, e.g. whether it raises an error or returns a negative status field.

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 short paragraphs, with the core action and the highest-value usage rule front-loaded. The trailing list of JSON field names is somewhat redundant since an output schema exists and costs a line of budget, but it is compact and not padded.

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-parameter diagnostic read with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to decide when to call it. The only shortfall is undocumented failure behavior when NVDA isn't running, which matters for a reachability check.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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 (check reachability, report) on a specific resource (NVDA status) and enumerates the reported facets: version, synthesizer, speech mode, foreground application, key-press permission. That enumeration clearly separates it from siblings like nvda_get_settings, nvda_get_focus, or nvda_get_dev_info.

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 two explicit triggering conditions: call it first when other tools fail, and call it before nvda_press_keys to verify control is enabled. Both name the sibling tools involved, so the agent has a concrete decision rule rather than an implied one.

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