kodi_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what is inspected (version, skin, profile/window, active players) and explicitly ruling out playback changes, which goes beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing return format or latency, but the output schema exists to cover that.

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 that names the verb, the inspected fields, and the key constraint. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with a rich output schema and full annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, exclusions, and inspection targets. A minor gap is the absence of explicit routing to sibling read tools, but the core call requirements are met.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the return scope rather than parameters, which is appropriate. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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?

Clear verb ('Inspect') and resource (Kodi state: version, skin, profile/window, active players). It is distinguishable from siblings like kodi_manager_inspect and kodi_lifecycle, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The scope is specific enough that an agent can tell what it returns 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?

The phrase 'no playback changes' implies a read-only, non-mutating context, which hints at when to use it versus mutating siblings (kodi_playback controls, kodi_settings). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over similar read tools like kodi_manager_inspect or kodi_read. Usage is implied, not spelled out.

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