DeckCraft status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing the inspection scope, notably that it probes live state ('whether the app is running / listening for control') rather than just static install info.

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 with the verb and target first, followed by a compact enumeration of the checked items; no filler. The trailing list is slightly run-on but every item conveys real scope 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of indicating what the agent will get back, and the enumeration of platform, executables, version, commands, themes, formats and running state effectively sketches the return content. It stops short of describing structure or how to interpret a failure, but is adequate for a simple status probe.

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 disambiguate; the baseline for 0-param tools applies. No parameter-related ambiguity is introduced by the description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('the DeckCraft installation') and then enumerates exactly which facets are inspected: platform, executables, version, engine commands, themes, formats, and running/listening state. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_presentation_info (which targets a presentation) or run_deckcraft_commands.

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 diagnostic framing ('Check the DeckCraft installation') implies this is the tool to call to verify readiness, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of it being a prerequisite before run_deckcraft_commands or open_in_deckcraft, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred.

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