jev_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does name the components whose status is checked and implies a read-only observation, but it does not explicitly say it is non-mutating or describe possible outcomes, partial failures, or the shape of the status report. This is adequate for a status tool but not fully transparent.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Connection status') and then lists the relevant components. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context; every phrase adds information.

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 query, the description gives the essential context: what is being checked and at what level. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return representation and failure behavior unspecified, so an agent cannot fully anticipate what the tool will return beyond a generic status indication.

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, so the description has essentially no parameter-semantics burden. The empty schema already covers everything, and the description sensibly avoids inventing input details. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 identifies the resource as 'connection status' and enumerates the exact scopes checked: the Figma plugin, the backend, and the live session with screens and pending reviews. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'get' or 'report,' but the intent is unambiguous and the specificity separates it from most sibling tools.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need to know whether the Jev Bridge plugin, backend, and live session are connected. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no note about whether it should be a first diagnostic step before other Jev operations.

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