status

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds the substantive behavior that two distinct conditions are probed (adb/USB presence and YPT installation). It does not describe the response shape, but with no output schema the semantics of 'what it reports' are at least conveyed at a high level.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and both conditions checked, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 read-only probe this is close to sufficient: it says what is inspected and implicitly that a yes/no result follows. Only the exact output form (booleans vs message) is left unstated, and with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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 for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no parameter claims that could conflict.

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 check: whether an Android phone is connected over USB via adb and whether YPT is installed on it. That is far more specific than the bare name 'status' and distinguishes it from the menu/media siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with midia_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as midia_status, and no mention that it functions as a precondition check before abrir_ypt. The usage context can be inferred but is never stated.

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