edf_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that it observes live state and UI activity but will not start the app, which is genuinely beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the list of inspected items, and the negative constraint placed last. No filler, though 'exact inspected package' is cryptic enough to slightly blur an otherwise tight statement.

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, fully-annotated diagnostic tool this is largely sufficient — the agent knows it is a safe read that will not launch anything. The only gap is that with no output schema, the shape of the returned status (pass/fail vs. detailed report) is left unstated.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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 concrete verb ('Check') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: the EDF installation, the inspected package, live connection, and manual UI activity. That is far more specific than the name alone, though it never names a sibling besides implicitly contrasting with edf_launch.

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 clause 'Does not start the app' functions as a when-not and implicitly routes the agent to edf_launch, which is real routing signal. However there is no positive statement of when to reach for this rather than edf_get_configuration or edf_get_job, so usage remains only implied.

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