OmniCinema companion status

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

Without annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It transparently states the tool performs detection, health checking, and state reporting, which are read-only operations. It does not disclose potential side effects, but the operations described are inherently non-destructive.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides all necessary context efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a straightforward status check, the description adequately covers the purpose, inputs, and outputs. It could be improved by specifying the output format, but it mentions 'CASE A/B/C state' which is sufficient.

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?

With no parameters (schema coverage 100%), the description adds meaning by detailing what is checked (well-known SSD paths, overrides, IPC health) and the output (CASE A/B/C state), which is not present in the schema.

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 specific verbs ('Detect', 'check', 'report') and clearly identifies the resource ('OmniCinema media generator'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like provision_omnicinema and generate_media_asset by focusing on detection and health checking.

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 usage for checking status, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., before provisioning) or when not to use. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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