Get Ryubing status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific items being checked but does not disclose response format or potential edge cases. This is adequate for a simple status tool but not rich behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description names the two key outputs (bridge compatibility and running game). However, it does not elaborate on what 'bridge compatibility' means or the response structure, which would be helpful given no output schema. Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema fully describes the single optional parameter sessionId with a pattern and explanation, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 with a specific verb 'Check' and identifies exactly what it reports: bridge compatibility and the currently running game. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_game, stop_session, and take_screenshot, which perform different actions.

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 use when you need to verify status or compatibility, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other tools like get_logs or list_sessions. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage context is only implicit.

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