chimerax_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the optional version check side effect (writing to the ChimeraX Log) and the default false to avoid it. It also describes the return value ('Connection status and version if running'). However, it does not explicitly state whether the status check itself is read-only or has any side effects, leaving a slight gap in transparency.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by essential usage guidance, args, and returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content, and the structure is well-organized and readable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to call, parameter behavior, and return type. The existence of an output schema covers detailed return structure, so the text description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining the sole parameter (include_version) with its effect, default, and rationale. The description provides complete semantic meaning that the schema lacks, making this exemplary.

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 purpose: 'Check if ChimeraX REST server is running.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('ChimeraX REST server'), and mentions the optional version inclusion. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chimerax_start or chimerax_detect, as it is explicitly positioned as a pre-check before other control tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'AI clients should call this before chimerax_start or other control tools rather than probing ChimeraX by launching it directly.' It also explains the default behavior of include_version to avoid writing to the ChimeraX Log, offering clear context for making the right call.

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