visio_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It honestly reveals the side effect that it 'Launches Visio if it is not already running', which an agent must know before calling. It also clarifies the built-in stencil library behavior (openable by bare filename, no download needed), adding useful operational context beyond the core report.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then lists concrete report contents, then adds the critical launch side effect and invocation advice. Each sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently tells the agent what the tool returns, what side effect it may have, and when to call it. The enumerated report contents plus the launch behavior and 'Call this first' instruction make the tool safe and correctly invocable.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter semantic burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add about parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Report Visio state') and enumerates exactly what the report contains: version, open documents and stencils, active page, My Shapes path, and the built-in stencil library. This clearly distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling tools like open_stencil or create_document.

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 says 'Call this first', giving an explicit invocation order relative to the sibling tools. It also notes it launches Visio if not running, which tells the agent this is the correct entry point before operating on documents or stencils. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a state-report tool that is a minor gap.

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