adobe_status

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

The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds the useful behavioral constraint that it will not launch applications or use Apple events, but it does not explain what status information is checked or what conditions cause an app to be reported as installed or running.

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 definition is a single short sentence with no filler. The scope and behavioral exclusions are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool is simple, the annotations are rich, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. It is nearly complete for this complexity level, though it would be stronger if it explicitly connected the 'application' enum to the inspection behavior or named the closest sibling alternative.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate by explaining the accepted values or their meaning. It does not mention the 'application' parameter at all, although the enum values 'photoshop' and 'illustrator' make the schema partly self-explanatory.

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 clear verb, 'Inspect,' and specifies the resource area, 'installation and running process.' The phrase 'only; no app launch or Apple events' helps distinguish this status-checking tool from sibling tools that open, create, edit, or render Adobe documents.

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 gives a useful boundary by saying this is inspection only and does not launch apps or send Apple events. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of related siblings such as adobe_inspect or adobe_open_copy, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than fully actionable.

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