idmly status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful semantics: it probes reachability and reports license-key PRESENCE without validating the key, noting validation happens at conversion time. That prevents the agent from assuming a pass guarantees a licensed conversion.

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?

A single sentence with the primary purpose (reachability) first and the secondary check plus its limitation in a compact parenthetical. No wasted words.

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, no-output-schema status tool the description covers what is checked and the key caveat about validation timing. It does not hint at the returned result shape (e.g., a status/boolean payload), which is the only remaining gap in an otherwise adequate definition.

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 and there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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) against two concrete resources: engine reachability and presence of a license key. It is trivially distinguishable from the only sibling, convert_to_indesign, which performs a conversion rather than a diagnostic probe.

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 parenthetical '(presence only; the key is validated on conversion)' implies this is a pre-flight/diagnostic check relative to convert_to_indesign, but it never explicitly says when to call this instead of just attempting a conversion or what a failure means for next steps. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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