get_tableau_public_app_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and enumerates five specific aspects reported. It does not discuss prerequisites or error conditions, but for a status tool, this is sufficient.

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 sentence with front-loaded content. Every word adds value: 'Report', the list of items, and 'Read-only'. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists the reported items without specifying return format. This is adequate for an agent to understand what will be provided. Slightly incomplete as it doesn't mention failure modes or format, but acceptable for a status tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter info. According to calibration, 0 parameters merits a baseline of 4.

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 clearly states the verb 'report' and specific resources: installation, version, running state, open windows, and Accessibility permission. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status information rather than authoring or publishing.

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 includes 'Read-only' which implies safe usage without side effects. While it does not explicitly list when to use vs alternatives, the context is clear among sibling tools. Slightly lacking explicit when-not or alternative references.

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