pro_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only license/installation check and reveals a dependency relationship, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., boolean vs. license details), whether errors are raised, or what a negative result means, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the dependency fact. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter status-check tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and dependency. The main remaining gap is that without an output schema, the description could state what the status result looks like. Otherwise it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not spend words on 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 states a specific resource and condition: whether Deptho Pro is 'installed and licensed here', which is far more precise than a tautology. It also links to siblings pro_sync and pro_replay, helping the agent place it in the toolset. It lacks an explicit verb like 'check' or 'query', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

By stating 'pro_sync and pro_replay need it', the description gives clear context for when this tool matters: as a prerequisite check before those two tools. It does not explicitly say 'call this first' or define what to do if the status is negative, but the guidance is concrete.

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