Comprobar conexión con REAPER

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

The description adds the returned elements (REAPER, active project, versions), which is useful. With readOnlyHint=true, the agent already knows it is safe. The description does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as response format or error behavior, but given the single-purpose nature and annotations, it provides adequate transparency.

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, concise sentence that delivers the essential information: what it checks and what it returns. No fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose and return values. It could have added a note about when to use it or error conditions, but these are not essential for a read-only health check with a clear output schema.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's action and output rather than parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: checking the bridge/connection to REAPER and returning the active project and versions. The verb 'Comprueba' (checks) and resource 'el puente' (the bridge) are specific, and the return values are listed. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools that manipulate tracks or projects.

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 usage—performing a connectivity check before other REAPER operations—but it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide exclusions or alternatives. No direct guidance on prerequisites or context beyond the inherent purpose of a health check.

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