get_app_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely subtle behavior — inferring modal-dialog blocking from 'process alive but bridge unresponsive' — which is valuable. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as invalid pid handling, what happens when no app has been launched, or whether the bridge check times out.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Report combined health') and then appends a parenthetical clarification of the trickiest signal. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 low-complexity (one optional, fully documented parameter) and has an output schema, so return-value documentation burden is lifted. The description covers the semantic meaning of each reported signal. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance distinguishing this from get_app_state, which keeps it from 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the pid parameter's schema description is rich ('App pid from launch_app. Omit to target the last launched app...'), so the description need not add parameter detail. It does not, but per the high-coverage baseline this is acceptable. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verb ('Report') with a concrete resource ('combined health of a launched app') and enumerates exactly what is reported: process liveness, exit code, bridge responsiveness, and modal-dialog blocking. This explicit scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_logs and get_app_output by content.

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 use case is implied by the description — it is clearly the diagnostic health-check tool — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. In particular, no attempt is made to differentiate it from the closely named sibling get_app_state, which could create selection ambiguity for an agent.

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