get_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds what is actually reported (game/dupe paths, format versions, filesystem availability), which tells the agent this is a non-mutating environment probe. It stops short of noting whether missing paths or unavailable filesystems are surfaced as warnings versus errors.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, with the most useful information (what is shown) leading. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 zero parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema carrying the return shape, the description covers what the agent needs to decide to call it. The only gap is the absence of a stated use case (e.g., run this before transforms to verify paths), which would fully close the loop.

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 there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema correctly declares an empty arguments object, and the description adds no contradictory input expectations.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates concrete contents: configured game/dupe paths, format versions, and filesystem availability. That distinguishes it from mutation siblings like transform_dupe or write_dupe, though it never explicitly separates it from the adjacent read-only model_info.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as model_info or list_dupes, and no prerequisites or preconditions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is a diagnostic/environment check rather than an operational query.

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