Reanim status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, local read. The description adds the scope of what is checked, but says nothing about the shape of the result, cost, or what a failed check implies. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler, and the primary function is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. It could be marginally tighter but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only, zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers what is inspected but never characterizes the returned status or counts. An agent can invoke it correctly but has only a rough idea of what it will get back.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-related for the description to compensate for. Schema coverage is also reported at 100%.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and enumerates the resources it inspects (reanim.luau script, workspace, SaveData, module counts), so the agent knows this is a setup/health check. It does not clearly differentiate from the sibling reanim_doctor, which likely serves a similar diagnostic purpose, so it falls short of 5.

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?

"Use first to verify setup" gives an implied when-to-use and even an ordering hint, which is more than nothing. However, it names no alternative (e.g., reanim_doctor) and states no exclusions, so the routing guidance is only partially complete.

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