line_get_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' reasonably implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify state, nor does it mention failure behavior or whether it requires a connected Chrome/gateway. This is a minimal but not rich disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the exact subject of the status check. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and no complex configuration.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description names the three status areas, which helps, but it does not describe what the returned status looks like or what possible values might be reported. This leaves some ambiguity about how to interpret 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, and the input schema is empty with 100% effective coverage. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters, and no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('the LINE gateway, Chrome CDP, and active LINE page status'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings that handle capabilities, chats, messages, sending, and operations. An agent can tell what this tool does without inspecting schemas.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions like 'use this when checking connectivity' or 'no setup required'. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and description.

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