vision_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent understands this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact state it checks (vision config and clipboard content), which goes beyond the annotations. With good annotation coverage, the high baseline is justified, and the description contributes additional context.

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?

The description is two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does and when to use it, leaving no gaps for the agent to interpret. The output schema handles return value details, so no further description is needed.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool checks (vision config, OS clipboard) without needing to document parameters. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description fulfills the need for contextual meaning.

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 clearly states the tool checks vision config and whether the OS clipboard holds an image. It specifies the verb ('check') and the resources ('vision config', 'OS clipboard'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling 'vision_see' by mentioning a fallback use case.

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 description explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use when vision_see fails or before asking the user to copy again.' This provides clear context and an alternative (the sibling tool), which is ideal for an agent deciding between tools.

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