status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does imply a read-only operation by saying 'Return a one-line status', which suggests no side effects. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's safe, nor does it disclose any potential errors or network dependencies. For a simple status check, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action and key fields. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple status tool. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It lists the returned fields, and since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to elaborate on return formats. It could optionally clarify what 'mode' refers to, but that's likely covered in the schema. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 effectively 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. It does add context about the output fields, but that's not parameter semantics. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, and the description is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool returns a one-line status with specific fields (host, connected flag, userid, mode). It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('status'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool, but among the siblings (connect, disconnect, get_screen, etc.), none duplicate this exact function, so it's adequately distinguishable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate whether this should be used before or after connection, or how it relates to 'connect' or 'login'. This is a clear gap.

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