status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and the interrogative phrasing does imply a passive, read-only state check with no side effects. It enumerates the four categories of information returned, which is useful behavioral context, but it never explicitly states read-only safety, cost, or failure behavior when Inkscape is not running.

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 compact sentence front-loads the primary question ('Is Inkscape running') and lists the remaining state queries without filler. Every clause adds a distinct piece of information.

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 read-only status tool with an output schema describing the return shape, the description is sufficient: the agent knows what it will learn. The one gap is the lack of differentiation from overlapping siblings like 'selection' and 'window'.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain; the 100% schema coverage baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 name plus the interrogative list makes it clear this reports runtime state: whether Inkscape is running, open documents, frontmost window, and current selection. It is a specific resource (application status), but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as 'selection', 'window', or 'inspect', which plausibly cover overlapping state.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives like 'selection' or 'window', nor any prerequisite or timing guidance. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it answers state questions.

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