get_fl_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes beyond that by enumerating what live state is surfaced (bridge, version, selection, recording state, capabilities), which tells the agent this is a cheap non-mutating probe. It does not say what happens when the bridge is down, so it is not a 5.

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 no filler, and the most important noun ("live FL bridge") leads. Nothing is wasted.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing returns and it does so by listing the state facets. The only real gap is error/disconnected behavior, which matters for a tool whose whole purpose is checking a live bridge.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names the resource plus the exact facets returned: bridge liveness, version, current selection, recording state, and capabilities. That is far more informative than the name alone. It stops short of naming a sibling it displaces, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

No sentence tells the agent when to call this versus list_fl_tracks, get_fl_parameters, or the mutation tools. A reader can infer it is a diagnostic/liveness probe, but the description never states prerequisites (e.g. call before other FL tools) or exclusions.

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