WordCraft status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the content of the probe, including the live state check ('whether the app is running / listening for control'), which tells the agent this inspects runtime state, not just static config.

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 no filler; the colon-delimited facet list is dense but each item is informative. It is slightly list-like rather than prose, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so thoroughly. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether it fails or reports an error when WordCraft is not installed.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and spends its words on what is returned instead.

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 a specific resource ('the WordCraft installation') and then enumerates the facets inspected (platform, executables, version, engine commands, feature coverage, save formats, running/listening state). That enumeration makes it clearly distinct from get_document_info and list_wordcraft_catalog, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The intent (a preflight/diagnostic check before running commands or opening documents) is only implied by the enumerated facets.

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