Eden Status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, lowering the bar. The description adds the scope of what status aspects are returned, but does not discuss parameter effects, output format, or potential caveats. It provides some value beyond the annotation but not deeply.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and lists the key content areas without unnecessary words. It is concise and readable, though slightly dense due to the list of items.

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 status tool with an output schema, the description covers the broad scope of returned information. However, it lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, making it only minimally complete for an agent that needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has one optional session_id parameter with zero description coverage, and the description never mentions session_id or how it influences the results. With 0% schema coverage, the description carries full responsibility for parameter explanation but fails completely.

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 that the tool retrieves the managed Eden process, backend, screen, game paths, and capabilities. The verb 'Get' is specific and the resource scope is well defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools that target individual aspects like screen size or capabilities alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eden_get_screen_size or eden_get_capabilities. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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