OmniFocus status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it defines the tool as a health check, lists the specific status categories returned, and warns that it never dumps tasks. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences accomplish a great deal: the first states what the tool reports, the second gives usage timing and an explicit scope boundary. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement.

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 low complexity—one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema—the description is complete enough for an agent to know when to call it and what it provides. The launch parameter is documented in the schema, and the output schema removes the need to describe return values in prose.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single optional launch parameter is fully documented in the schema ('If true, try to bring OmniFocus forward'). The tool description itself does not discuss the parameter, but at this coverage level the schema carries the semantic burden, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a health check for OmniFocus and enumerates the status data it provides: running state, Pro vs Standard, undo availability, and headline counts. It distinguishes itself from task-oriented siblings by explicitly stating 'It never dumps tasks,' though it does not name a specific sibling for comparison.

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 gives explicit usage triggers: 'Use this first when a session starts or a call fails.' It also provides a meaningful exclusion by clarifying that it never dumps tasks, implying that task retrieval should go elsewhere. However, it does not name an alternative tool for those cases, stopping short of fully explicit routing.

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