What KLYPIX can do right now

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description discloses non-obvious behavior: it reports app-running state, per-feature prerequisites 'what each still needs from the user,' current front canvas and card selection, view state, and a daily quota ('how many Gemini readings this tool has left today') — real rate-limit context the annotations do not carry.

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 purpose and call trigger are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and each clause adds a distinct capability rather than repeating the schema. It is dense and long — one enumerative sentence about return state would read better as a list — but no sentence is pure padding.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the full burden of what comes back, and it does enumerate the returned facts (running state, canvases, view, selection, quota). Combined with the call-timing guidance, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret it correctly, though return formats/types remain undefined.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and there are no parameter semantics to mis-specify. Nothing in the description contradicts 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check what KLYPIX can do for the user on this PC right now') and enumerates the concrete facts returned: app running state, open canvases, save location, and available features. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by routing selected card ids to read_card_contents, so an agent can tell it apart from other status/canvas tools.

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?

Gives an explicit call condition: 'Call it before promising anything that needs the KLYPIX app,' which is a clear when-to-use trigger. It does not state when NOT to call or name a competing status tool, but the preflight framing is strong enough to guide selection.

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