get_pump_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add useful operational context: the pump enables commands to reach the open project, and its absence limits work to path-based operations. It implies a read-only status check but does not explicitly state the return format, which is acceptable because an output schema is present.

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, both front-loaded and free of waste. The first states what is checked; the second immediately explains why it matters.

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?

Given the simple status-check complexity, empty input schema, and available output schema, the description supplies enough context about what the status means and its practical impact. It stops short of explicit usage guidance, but that gap is minor for a read-only zero-param tool.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and no additional param information is needed.

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 identifies the subject as the main-thread dispatcher installation status and explains its role in enabling commands to reach ArcGIS Pro. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this status check from sibling diagnostic tools such as ping or diagnose.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It provides contextual impact ('without it only path-based work runs') but never states a when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or sibling alternatives.

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