armorpaint_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the explicit statement 'without changing the project,' which reinforces the non-mutating behavior and introduces the local-connection and bridge-version scope. It does not go beyond this, but given strong annotation coverage, the additional context is sufficient.

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 states the action and scope with no filler. It is appropriately minimal for such a simple tool and 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?

For a zero-parameter status check with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It identifies exactly what is being checked and explicitly notes the absence of side effects, which is the key contextual concern for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 description has no parameter burden. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the status check returns rather than adding irrelevant parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies precise resources ('local connection and supported bridge version'). The phrase 'without changing the project' clarifies its non-mutating scope. It does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, but the stated purpose is distinct enough from project-state tools like armorpaint_get_state.

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 implied usage is to verify connectivity and bridge compatibility before performing other operations, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternative tools. For a status/health check, the context is reasonably clear, though exclusions are absent.

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