Pure Data Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately lists the output categories, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention prerequisites like an active session or potential error conditions. 'Return' implies non-mutating, but this is not explicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 description covers the key output areas and is sufficient for a tool with no parameters and no output schema. However, it lacks detail on the return format or preconditions, leaving minor gaps for an agent that needs to interpret the result.

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 zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is no parameter detail to explain, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Pd lifecycle state, patch path, parameters, and recent errors'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, modify, or start sessions, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. It simply states the tool's action without contextualizing when it should be called relative to other pd_* tools.

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