Rd Status

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the default is zero side effects, and that handshake=True causes the backend to minimize its console window—a non-obvious side effect. This goes beyond the schema, which only shows a boolean parameter. It lacks details on return format or error behavior, but the core behavioral transparency is strong.

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 concise (two sentences) but packs essential information: what it checks, the default behavior, side effects, and a caution. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its keep.

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 simple diagnostic tool with one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete. It informs the agent of the default behavior and side effects. The absence of return-value details is acceptable because an output schema exists, and the tool's function is straightforward. The main gap is not specifying what constitutes a 'reachable' response or possible error codes, but that is minor given the output schema.

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 input schema only defines 'handshake' as a boolean with default false, and description coverage is 0%. The description explains the semantic of the parameter: it controls whether to perform the version handshake, which has a side effect. This adds meaning that the schema lacks, providing the necessary interpretation for correct use.

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 clearly states the tool checks reachability of the Retro Diffusion backend on a specific WebSocket URL, distinguishing its diagnostic role from the sibling state-changing tools like rd_start_backend and rd_stop_backend. It uses a specific verb ('Check whether... is reachable') and resource (ws://127.0.0.1:8765), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explains default behavior (pure socket open) and when to use handshake=True, with a clear warning ('avoid unless diagnosing'). It implicitly differentiates from rd_start_backend (starts backend) and rd_stop_backend (stops), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for when not to use this tool over others.

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