ttsim_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Never fails: an unreachable TTSim is reported, not raised' discloses the error semantics an agent must branch on, and the return contents are enumerated. It stops short of describing the shape of the unreachable response (message text, status field), leaving that to inference.

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 sentences with no filler: capability first, error behavior second. The most decision-relevant fact (it never raises on failure) is placed where it will be read.

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 zero params, no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient because it enumerates the returned fields and the failure mode. The only gap is the exact form of the 'reported' unreachable result, which an agent must guess at.

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 there is nothing to document and no risk of ambiguity; the baseline applies. No parameter information is 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 names a specific verb and target ('Check whether TTSim is reachable') and then enumerates exactly what is returned (game name, object count, seated players with colour and host). This clearly separates it from the sibling object/script/dice tools, which all operate on game content rather than service health.

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 – the health-check framing suggests calling it first or when connectivity is in doubt, but the description never states when to prefer it or what to do with the result. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, though none of the disclosed siblings competes for the same purpose.

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