remarkable_status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe read behavior. The description adds substantial context: it details capabilities per transport (cloud, SSH, USB web), write tool enablement, and read-only mode. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with sections (usecase, instructions, capability notes, examples). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses markup for clarity. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description explains the return value (authentication status, active transport, document count, capability matrix). It covers all necessary context for a zero-parameter status 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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 applies as there are no parameters to describe.

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 clearly states it checks connection status, active transport, and write capabilities. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., remarkable_browse, remarkable_read) by focusing on status and connectivity rather than file operations.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to verify your connection, choose a transport, or troubleshoot.' It explains different transports and their capabilities, helping the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond transports.

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