office_native_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description usefully adds that detection covers both installation state and running state, and constrains the platform to Windows — context beyond the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word carries scope (installed vs running, the three apps, Windows).

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 should ideally hint at the return shape (e.g., per-app installed/running flags) and interpretation. It covers what is detected but leaves the response format and how to act on it unspecified.

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 per the no-params rule.

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?

States a specific verb ('Detect') and a precisely scoped resource: installed and currently running native Excel, Word, and PowerPoint apps on Windows. This distinguishes it from batch-manipulation siblings by its diagnostic nature, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as office_capabilities or office_list_open_files, and no stated preconditions (e.g., 'call before native batch operations'). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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