Check CapSkip status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying what is being checked (running and reachable) and the diagnostic purpose. It does not introduce any surprising behavior, and there is no contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value with no 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?

For a simple status check with no parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and that it takes no arguments. No gaps remain.

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 no parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' which matches the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and since no additional semantic detail is needed, this is appropriate.

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 tool checks whether the CapSkip desktop app is running and reachable, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling solving tools by framing this as a diagnostic pre-check.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this first when a solve fails unexpectedly' and it distinguishes between 'CapSkip is not running' and 'the sitekey was wrong'. This gives clear when-to-use context without needing to mention alternatives.

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