app_status

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the precondition (open app + drag in mblock-bridge.mext) and clarifying what 'connected' means, going beyond the raw annotations.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the necessary setup hint. No wasted wording.

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 parameterless status check, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: what it checks and how to ensure the prerequisite. The annotations carry the safety profile, and there is no output schema required. Nothing important is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input side. The description adds contextual meaning about the connection check, which is appropriate since there is nothing to elaborate on. The baseline for zero parameters is 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 'Check' and the resource 'mBlock 5 app bridge', and clarifies what 'connected' means by referencing the setup steps. It distinguishes this status-check tool from the many app_* operation tools in the sibling list.

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 that the bridge must be connected for the tool to work, and gives instructions to achieve that, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before calling app_put_script). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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