app_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new content by disclosing the returned fields and the non-starting behavior. It stops short of describing failure behavior when the app is down, which is the main remaining unknown.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and capped by the key exclusion. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it enumerates version, song summary, and playback/export state, which is adequate for a status probe. 'Song summary' and 'export state' remain slightly under-specified (what fields, what states), keeping it below a 5.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly says nothing about inputs.

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?

States a specific verb ('Reports') and resource ('whether Bosca Ceoil Blue is running') and enumerates exactly what comes back: version, song summary, playback and export state. This clearly separates it from siblings like launch_app, quit_app, and export_status.

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 clause 'Doesn't start the app' explicitly excludes the most likely confusion and implicitly routes the agent to launch_app for that need. However, it doesn't state the positive trigger conditions (e.g., 'call before any operation to confirm the app is up') or what happens if the app is not running.

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