emule_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Return' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, and listing the specific status categories gives the agent a good sense of what to expect. It does not discuss failure modes or prerequisites, but the simple read-only nature is well conveyed.

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, front-loaded sentence states the action and the three return categories with no filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple: no parameters, output schema present, and the description names the key data categories. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is fully comprehensive. The description adds useful context about what the returned status contains, but no parameter documentation is needed. Baseline 4 applies.

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 ('Return') and identifies the exact resources: connection state, transfer rates, and Kad status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like emule_connect or emule_list_downloads.

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 this is the tool to call when the current eMule status is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. For a zero-parameter status query, this is acceptable but not explicit.

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