femm_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses that check_version shells out once and is cached (~0.3 s), and it explains the hard dependency failure mode plus remediation (install FEMM 5 or set FEMM_DIR). It stops short of stating the operation is read-only/non-mutating or describing the response shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the payload, then the sequencing directive, then the failure path and the parameter cost. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter sentence could be folded more tightly into the first.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must enumerate return content, and it does name the key fields (install path, version, sessions, work dir, counts, install.found). For a diagnostic tool with zero annotations this is nearly complete, missing only fuller return-shape detail.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It does: check_version is explained as running `femm_headless --version` once, cached, at ~0.3 s cost, which is exactly the latency tradeoff an agent needs to decide the default. More detail on what happens when it is false is missing.

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 concrete outputs (install location, FEMM 5 version, open sessions, work dir, catalog/material counts), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as femm_health_check or femm_selftest, which an agent might reasonably reach for instead.

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 sequencing directive, and the failure branch (if install.found is false, nothing else can run) tells the agent how to react. It lacks any when-not guidance or comparison against femm_health_check/femm_selftest, so it falls short of the 5 tier.

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