cascadeur_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the explicit guarantee of not changing the scene, which is consistent, but it does not add other behavioral context such as authentication requirements, failure modes, or whether a workspace must be active. With strong annotation coverage, the description does not go beyond annotations significantly.

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 gives the complete what and why. Every word earns its place: the verb, the resources checked, and the non-mutating guarantee. No filler or redundancy.

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 inspection tool, the description is sufficient to understand what will be checked and that no scene changes will occur. Since there is no output schema, a tiny bit more detail about what the response contains could be useful, but it is not essential for selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 input schema carries no burden and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters because there are none to document.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and a concrete set of resources: app heartbeat, workspace, bridge version, and scripting opt-in. It clearly distinguishes from scene-mutating tools by stating it does not change the scene, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar inspection siblings like cascadeur_get_state or cascadeur_capabilities.

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 'without changing the scene' implies this is the safe, read-only status check to use when you only need environment/connectivity information. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the various other inspection tools in the sibling list, so the usage context is only implied.

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