ascent_unreal_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does a good job: it signals this is a read-only status check, reveals a practical risk consideration (file-lock), and lists what the status covers. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but the tool's nature makes them low-risk.

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 a single tight sentence that leads with the core purpose and enumerates the relevant items without wasted words. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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-parameter, no-output-schema status tool, the description gives enough context for an agent to choose it and understand the kind of information it will receive. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact shape of the status response, but the listed categories suffice.

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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4 because there is no parameter meaning 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?

Describes a specific resource (server/environment status) with a clear verb phrase and enumerates the key content: paths, editor-running state, and script housekeeping. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all mutation/inspection actions rather than a status query.

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 a clear usage context by flagging file-lock risk for mutating tools, suggesting this should be checked before running those tools. It does not explicitly say 'use when' or name alternatives, but the intended timing and purpose are evident.

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