Live VBE sessions

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by disclosing that each session is probed before listing and why: 'a discovery file outlives the process that wrote it.' It also adds platform and prerequisite context that the annotations do not express.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the main action and scope, the intended use case, then the platform/prerequisite and probing caveat. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool lists, how to interpret a session, when to call it, and operational caveats. There is no missing guidance that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.

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 input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly emphasizes the tool's zero-parameter nature by focusing entirely on the output and invocation context rather than parameter details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the running xlide_vbide sessions this machine can reach,' and clarifies what counts as a session: one per Office process with the VBE open and add-in loaded. This distinguishes it from other xlide list tools, which target projects, modules, queries, or sheets.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it to find out whether the user has a live editor before asking about what is on their screen.' It also gives prerequisites (Windows only, add-in's local API must be switched on), but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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