jevsim_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'No secrets returned' and 'Defaults to iOS.' This goes beyond the annotation and reassures the agent about the tool's output and platform behavior. It does not cover every edge case, but for a status check that 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the platform default and a security-relevant note. Every sentence 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?

Given a simple one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the default, and a key output property ('No secrets returned'). It does not describe the return format, but for a status check with readOnlyHint this is a minor gap; sibling routing is also not addressed but is not essential here.

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 carry the explanatory burden. It compensates by mapping the platform enum to 'iOS simulators or Android devices' and explicitly stating the default ('Defaults to iOS'). It does not name the parameter 'platform' directly, but the meaning is clear.

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 names concrete resources: backend connection, supported capabilities, iOS simulators/Android devices, and credential presence. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings; the distinction is inferred from the word 'status' versus 'inspect' and 'run_steps'.

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 implies a pre-flight or health-check usage, and 'Defaults to iOS' gives platform context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over jevsim_inspect or jevsim_run_steps, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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