katana_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load; it conveys that this is a multi-part status probe rather than a mutation, but never says whether it is read-only, whether it fails or returns a not-reachable value, or whether it has side effects like prompting a connection. Adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary check (reachability) and then the additional reported facts. It earns its length, though the trailing sub-clause about variation colors is slightly compressed and could be split for readability.

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, the description does the job of listing what is returned (reachability, connection state, patch name, effect variations). For a no-parameter diagnostic tool that is nearly sufficient, though error/unreachable outcomes are not described.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 names a specific verb (Check) and spells out the concrete resources reported: BOSS TONE STUDIO reachability, KATANA Gen 3 connection, current patch name, and per-effect variation color. That is far more specific than the bare name katana_status and separates it from katana_get and katana_connect.

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?

Usage is only implied: it reads as a pre-flight/health diagnostic, so an agent can infer calling it before katana_connect or katana_get. But it never states when to prefer it over katana_get or katana_connect, nor any preconditions.

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