osc_get_emulator_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only status check ('Check if'), which implies no destructive effects. However, it doesn't mention potential latency, error conditions, or what specific status information is returned beyond running/not 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place by clearly defining the tool's purpose.

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 status check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe the return format or potential error conditions. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is acceptable but leaves some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description is clear about the operation.

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 specific action ('Check if') and target resource ('X32 emulator is currently running'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'osc_start_emulator' and 'osc_stop_emulator' by focusing on status checking rather than control operations.

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 implies usage when needing to verify the emulator's operational state, which provides clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, though the sibling tools suggest this is for status checking versus control operations.

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