Perssua app status

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already convey that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that it checks installation, running state, and bridge location on the local machine, but it does not describe return format, error behavior, or what 'integration bridge' concretely means. This is acceptable but not especially rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the resource, the exact checks being performed, and the location aspect. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple, parameterless read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to know: that the tool checks installation, running state, and bridge location. Sibling tools are unrelated, and no prerequisites or caveats are necessary for this operation.

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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. A score of 4 is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool, and the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose without needing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the concrete resource: whether the Perssua desktop app is installed, running, and where its integration bridge lives. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which deal with assistants and sessions.

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 gives a clear use context: call this tool to determine the desktop app's installation and running state, and to locate its integration bridge. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools' purposes are clearly different enough that the intended use is evident.

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