pi_status

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it may inspect daemon/PixInsight state but will not launch PixInsight unless explicitly requested via launch:true. 'Call first' is also a useful operational behavior for a status probe. This conflicts with no annotation.

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 compact and dense, with the core status payload front-loaded, followed by the critical 'call first' directive and the launch caveat. Every clause earns its place and no information is repeated from the schema.

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 simple read-only polling tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what data is returned, when to call it, and the only side-effect worth knowing. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly; a small gap is that it does not describe the exact response shape or how to interpret daemon vs. PixInsight liveness separately.

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 schema already fully documents the single launch parameter with a clear description, so baseline credit is appropriate. The description reinforces the parameter's meaning by stating the launch side effect, but it does not add significant new detail beyond the schema.

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 enumerates what the tool reports: daemon/PixInsight liveness, version, installed optional modules, open windows, session, and active job. This exceeds a vague label and orients the agent to what 'status' means for this tool. It loses a point because it lacks a fetch/retrieve verb, but the enumerated payload makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

'Call first' is explicit, practical usage guidance that tells the agent to invoke this tool before other operations. It also clarifies that the tool does not launch PixInsight unless launch:true, which prevents an unexpected side effect. However, it does not explicitly say what to do if the daemon is not running or which sibling to use next.

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