rojo_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The interrogative form clearly signals a non-mutating probe, and the parenthetical discloses a behavioral trait beyond the schema - it also reports whether rojo_start was the origin of the running server. However, it doesn't state what happens when no server is found (error vs. a negative result), which matters for a status probe.

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 compact sentence with the subject scoping ('for this project') and port condition up front, and no filler. The parenthetical clause is slightly awkward but carries real information about the rojo_start provenance.

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 two-parameter, low-complexity status probe with an output schema present (so return shape need not be explained), the description covers the resource, the port condition, the project scope, and the provenance question. The only missing piece is the failure-mode behavior when the server is not answering.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does reference both parameters semantically - 'for this project' and 'answering on the port' - tying each to its role in the check. But it adds no format or value guidance (e.g. project path vs. name, the 34872 default, whether a non-default port is common), so it only partially fills the documentation gap.

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 the resource (a Rojo server for this project) and the check being performed (answering on the port, and whether rojo_start started it), which distinguishes it from rojo_start and rojo_stop. It is phrased as a question rather than a verb-led statement (e.g. 'Check server status'), which slightly softens the action, but the intent is unambiguous.

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: an agent can infer this is the pre-flight/probe call to run before rojo_start, after rojo_stop, or when a build fails. There is no explicit 'use this when...' clause and no stated exclusions or alternatives, though the reference to rojo_start hints at the lifecycle relationship.

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