openutau_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose what the tool reports: running state, bridge reachability, and remediation guidance. However, it leaves open whether the check has side effects (does it start or attach to OpenUtau?), whether it blocks or times out when the bridge is unreachable, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and the actionable 'call this first' directive, with no filler. The bilingual restatement doubles the length without adding information, which is a deliberate localization choice but still costs some density.

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 diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and that fixes are included, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It would be fully complete if it stated whether a failed check is reported as a normal result or an error, since that determines how the agent should branch afterward.

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 the schema is complete by definition and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to run the check.

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 the specific checks performed (process running, bridge reachable) and adds a remediation promise, so an agent knows this is a diagnostic tool rather than a control tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with launch_openutau or close_openutau, but the 'is X running' framing implicitly separates it from the lifecycle siblings.

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?

'Call this first' is an explicit, actionable ordering instruction that tells the agent when to invoke it relative to everything else. It stops short of stating when-not-to-call or naming launch_openutau as the follow-up action if the check fails.

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