standalone_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Report' strongly implies a non-mutating query and the description usefully discloses the information categories returned, but it never explicitly confirms read-only behavior, side-effect freedom, or output shape for a tool with no output schema.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Report whether the standalone path is active') before the supplementary details. It is appropriately sized, though for an informational tool the terseness leaves some behavioral context implicit.

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?

Complexity is low (zero parameters, no nested objects), but with no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry more of the behavioral load. It lists the reported categories at a high level but does not describe the return structure, error conditions, or ordering of information an agent would receive.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the baseline. With no arguments to mis-specify, a baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 ('Report') and enumerates three concrete subjects: whether the standalone path is active, the bundled data pack contents, and offline capabilities. This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like standalone_create, standalone_open, and standalone_generate, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a read-only status check to run before or instead of standalone_create, standalone_mcu, or standalone_generate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no mention of how it relates to pack_status or mode_pattern.

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