affinity_status

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful operational context by identifying the local MCP connector dependency and confirming that checking status will not launch Affinity, though it does not discuss error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the exact purpose and then provide the essential non-launch caveat. There is 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-argument, read-only status check, the description and annotations provide nearly everything needed to select and invoke the tool. Because there is no output schema, it could additionally clarify the status response shape or disconnected/error handling, but these are minor gaps.

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?

There are no parameters, and the empty schema with additionalProperties disabled fully specifies invocation. No parameter explanation is necessary, so the zero-parameter baseline 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 specific verb "Report" and the resource—adapter connectivity to Affinity's local MCP connector—make the purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from the document-oriented siblings, and "Does not launch Affinity" further separates it from affinity_open.

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 establishes its use as a connectivity check and explicitly rules out using it to launch Affinity. It does not name affinity_open as the alternative or describe a recommended preflight workflow, so the routing guidance is not fully explicit.

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