md_status

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

The verb 'Check' plus the enumerated items signals a read-only diagnostic behavior, which is useful given there are no annotations. However, the description does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it performs any validation steps, or what happens if MarkItDown is unavailable or paths are missing.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the checked items in a scannable sequence. Every word contributes information, with no filler or redundancy.

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, no-output-schema status tool, the description is usable for invoking the tool, but it omits what the result will look like and what 'check' means operationally. A brief statement about return values or explicit side-effect-free behavior would make it more complete, especially without annotations.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter documentation is needed here.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') applied to the MarkItDown MCP resource and enumerates the exact status items: workdir, outdir, package-local styles, and optional Sublime path. This gives concrete scope and helps distinguish it from operational siblings like md_convert and md_styles, though it does not explicitly label itself as a status/diagnostic tool.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions, and no mention of when not to use it. An agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this is the environment-status checker rather than a style-manipulation or conversion tool.

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