GenOffice app status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses it is read-only and does not launch anything, and explains what 'live' means for the process version. However, it doesn't disclose edge-case behaviors like what happens if the app isn't installed or the port is down, or describe the shape of the returned status object.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return values, and read-only behavior are all covered concisely with the most important behavioral caveat ('does not launch anything') queued at the end. Well front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter status-check tool, the description is essentially complete. It covers what's checked, what's returned, and the safety profile. The only minor gap is not describing the structure/type of the returned status payload, but with no output schema and 0 params, the description does a solid job for the tool's low complexity.

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 0 parameters (schema coverage 100%, 0 params), so per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't need to document parameters but adds value by explaining exactly what is verified and returned, which helps the agent understand the tool's inputs/outputs conceptually.

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 ('check') with a clear resource (GenOffice app installation and CDP debug port). It lists the exact return values (app bundle version, process version, page title/url), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like genoffice_app_launch or genoffice_app_eval.

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 clearly states what is checked (installation, debug port) and explicitly notes it is read-only and does not launch anything, which distinguishes it from sibling genoffice_app_launch. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or include when-not guidance, though the read-only declaration implies when it's appropriate.

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