lemon_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 disclose the returned information (connection, version, permission level, transport), which substitutes in part for the absent output schema and signals a non-mutating read. However it never explicitly states there are no side effects, nor whether the call fails or returns a partial result when Lemon Studio is not connected.

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 with no filler, front-loading the connection check first. It reads as a bare field list rather than a purpose statement, which is slightly harder to scan but wastes nothing.

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 no-param, no-output-schema tool the enumerated return fields are the key content and they are present, but the description leaves the relationship to transport_status unresolved and gives no hint about response shape or behavior on a disconnected app — the two things an agent would most want to know here.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and it adds no misleading param claims.

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 names the resource (Lemon Studio status) and enumerates exactly which status facets are returned: connection state, app version, permission level, transport. It is clear what it does, but it omits any verb ('Returns/Reports') and never distinguishes itself from the sibling transport_status, which by name appears to cover overlapping ground.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus transport_status, lemon_launch, or get_project_state. No preconditions, no 'call this first to verify connection before launching' hint — the agent must infer that this is the general handshake/diagnostic tool purely from the field list.

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