pscribe_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 discloses the return fields and the possible status values (listening/stopped), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, which is important for a status check with no annotation safety hints.

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 two sentences: first an action statement, second a return field list. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear enumeration of the returned fields and status values. Minor gaps include not explaining what 'duration' refers to or potential connection errors, but overall it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description need not explain parameters. It adds clarity by stating what the returned status object contains.

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 a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'current status of the ParrotScribe service'. It immediately distinguishes from siblings like pscribe_start/stop by focusing on status retrieval. The return field list further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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?

Usage is implied but not explicitly stated. There is no mention of 'use this before starting' or 'instead of pscribe_tail'. However, given the sibling set, checking status is an intuitive prelude to start/stop decisions, so some context exists but explicit alternatives/exclusions are absent.

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