dolphin_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but 'Show' clearly signals a non-mutating read and the enumerated outputs (state, capabilities, queued events, PID) tell the agent what information it yields. It does not clarify whether calling it has side effects on queued events, or whether it requires an active connection.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb comes first and the reported fields follow immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return content, which is the main thing an agent needs. It is only slightly short of complete because it omits any precondition about connection state.

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 there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter semantics gap.

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 ('Show') and enumerates the exact resource it reports: DAP connection state, capabilities, queued events, and managed Dolphin PID. This lets an agent distinguish it from dolphin_connect/disconnect/events without opening a schema, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or ordering relative to dolphin_start/dolphin_connect, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the name that this is a diagnostic read to call after connecting.

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