get_status

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: the tool still answers when Live is unreachable, returning connected: false plus a fix hint. It also explains the dialog-pending state and how capabilities gate other tools, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot 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 opening 'Start here.' is well front-loaded, and the remaining sentence is information-dense with no filler. It is a single very long enumeration clause that could be broken up for scanability, but every item earns its place.

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 status tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the payload fields, the degraded-mode behavior, and the follow-up action, so an agent has everything it needs to call it and 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 takes zero parameters, so by the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify, and the schema is trivially complete.

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 identifies this as the diagnostic entry point ('Start here') and enumerates exactly what the status report contains: connection, versions, open set, transport state, dialog, jobs, and capabilities. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling (which are all mutation/query tools) without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a strong positive trigger ('Start here') and explicitly routes to respond_to_dialog when the dialog field is set, plus names which capabilities gate analyze_audio/create_release/save_set etc. It does not state when this tool is not appropriate (e.g., polling vs. event-driven use), so it stops just short of the top band.

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