get_visio_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states it returns version and open document info, but does not specify the return structure, how 'not running' is reported, or whether it has side effects (likely none). The description is partially transparent but lacks critical details about the response format.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Check whether Microsoft Visio is running') and immediately states deliverables. There is no wasted wording 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 simple 0-parameter status tool without an output schema, the description should specify the exact return shape (e.g., a status code, boolean, or object with version and document fields). It mentions 'version and open document info' but leaves 'open document info' vague, and does not explain behavior if Visio is not running. This is a noticeable gap for an agent to correctly parse the result.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema is consistent. No additional meaning is required.

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 states a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('Microsoft Visio running status'), and what it returns ('version and open document info'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_document_info, which likely requires a document context. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool versus others. It implies usage as a pre-check before Visio operations, but this is not stated. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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