prompt_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It signals a read-only health check by using 'Check' and lists exactly what is reported (two availability states, output path, manifest count), but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether any side effects occur. The bare minimum is met, but richer detail would be expected for a tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with a colon introducing a compact list of checks. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 status probe, the description covers the key behavior and output components. It would benefit from explicitly stating that it returns a structured status object or boolean availability flags, but the current description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed.

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') with a clear resource ('PromptBrush system status') and enumerates four concrete status components (BlueprintGraphBuilder availability, WidgetBlueprintBuilder availability, output directory path, manifest count), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like project_info or bridge_command_manifest.

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 phrase 'Check PromptBrush system status' implies this tool should be used when the agent needs to verify PromptBrush readiness, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as test_connection or bridge_command_manifest, nor state when not to use it. This is adequate but not fully prescriptive.

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