adobe_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds real value by enumerating transport modes (hub|com|afterfx|osascript) and heartbeat detection, hinting at how connectivity is reported. It does not describe output format or behavior when nothing is running.

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?

One dense front-loaded sentence plus a short imperative directive; both earn their place. The packed parenthetical slightly reduces readability but carries substantive content.

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?

With no output schema, the description still characterizes what is returned: versions, paths, running state, scriptability, transports, and heartbeats. It omits a precise return shape, but a status probe requires little more to be called correctly.

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?

Zero parameters gives a baseline of 4. The parenthetical transport list adds conceptual context to the reported fields even though there are no inputs to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reports which Adobe apps are installed (versions, paths), running, and scriptable, plus transport modes and hub heartbeats. This distinguishes it from siblings like adobe_launchApp or ae_getProjectState as a cross-app environment probe.

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?

Explicitly directs 'Call first in a session', giving clear usage ordering. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., use ae_getProjectState for per-project detail), so it falls short of a 5.

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