lc_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. The verb 'Report' and the enumerated outputs (installation, folder root, writability, data model) convey that this is a non-mutating status probe. It does not explicitly promise 'no changes', but the semantics are strong enough for safe invocation.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence ('Call this first.') adds essential usage context without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main return topics an agent needs from a status tool: detected installation, folder root, writability, and song data model. It could specify error behavior when Lovely Composer is not detected, but the parenthetical detail and 'detected' wording make the description adequate.

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 no parameters and the empty schema fully documents them, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately spends no space on parameters and instead explains what the status call returns.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names a concrete resource (Lovely Composer installation, music folder root, writability, song data model). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling lc_* tools, which list folders/songs or perform mutations.

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 explicit instruction 'Call this first' provides clear when-to-use guidance, positioning it as an initialization/check step for the other lc_* tools. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative conditions, but the context is unambiguous.

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