attach_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Always works, no error,' which is a strong behavioral guarantee, and it completely specifies the return format including keys and types.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first for purpose, second for reliability and usage hint, third for output format. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, behavioral characteristics, return value format, and a use case. It is fully complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no param info. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description adds context about the tool's purpose and behavior beyond the empty schema.

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 a Qt app is attached via the proxy agent. It uses specific verb 'check' and resource 'attach status', and the unique purpose distinguishes it from all sibling tools which are file/window operations.

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 explicitly says 'Useful for clients to poll,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not offer exclusion criteria or alternative tools, but given the tool's specific role, the guidance is adequate.

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