dorico_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value by declaring READ-ONLY behavior and flagging that this property is 'not yet confirmed by the live harness' — a useful reliability caveat. However it says nothing about failure modes, e.g. what is returned or whether it errors when Dorico is not running or Remote Control is disconnected.

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 resource and the returned fields, with the caveat bracketed and clearly separated. No wasted wording, though the bracketed header-style caveat is slightly awkward prose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating the returned values. The only real gap is the absence of any note on behavior when the Dorico connection is unavailable.

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 is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description sensibly uses the space to describe what comes back 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?

The description names a specific resource ('Live Dorico status') and enumerates the exact fields it reports (mode, selection, note input, undo availability), so an agent knows precisely what it returns. It is clearly a read/query tool, distinct from the mutation-heavy siblings like add_note_marking or undo, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 guidance and no named alternative or exclusion. The word 'Live' weakly implies 'call this to inspect current state before acting', but that is entirely inferred rather than stated.

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