ide_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool is diagnostic and lists specific information it checks, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, error behavior, or whether any system state changes occur. The term 'Diagnostics' provides a hint but leaves room for interpretation.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with 'Diagnostics' and listing exactly what is resolved. There is no waste or redundancy, making it easy to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description partially fulfills the need by listing three diagnostic items. However, it does not explain the format of the output, how to interpret 'available', or provide background on 'ikide'. These gaps leave the tool somewhat underspecified for an agent.

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 schema already fully covers this aspect. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional clarification is required.

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's purpose: diagnostics for resolved ikide root, binary path, and IDE checkout availability. The verb 'diagnostics' is specific and the listed items make the output clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ide_overview or ide_test_api, though the focus on status diagnostics is distinctive.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where ide_status is preferred over ide_overview or other ide_* tools. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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