perch_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the reported facets (save state, syntax errors, collab sync, line counts, engine, CF status, buffered counts). However it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free observation, nor how expensive it is or whether it changes state. Useful content, but the behavioral profile is incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a compact enumeration; every listed item corresponds to returned data and earns its place. Minor deduction for jargon ('CF status') that is not self-explanatory.

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?

With no output schema, the description effectively serves as the return-value contract by naming each reported field, which is the right thing to do here. It is nearly complete for a zero-param read tool, lacking only an explicit read-only/side-effect statement.

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 schema baseline of 4 applies and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Report live editor state') and then enumerates exactly which facets are reported. That enumeration makes the tool distinguishable from siblings like perch_console, perch_errors and perch_outline, which cover subsets of this data. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the general health/diagnostics check from 'live editor state', but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over perch_console or perch_errors, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but with a clear gap given the crowded sibling set.

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