status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond listing the domains of state, but it does not contradict the annotations. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate for not adding further nuance.

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 the core action front-loaded ('한 번에 요약합니다'). It lists eight distinct domains, which makes it slightly dense, but every item is meaningful and the sentence structure is efficient.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and the tool's simple read-only purpose, the description covers the essential scope well. It lists all state domains comprehensively, though it does not specify the return format or what happens when no state is active; these are minor gaps for this low-complexity tool.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids any parameter-related details, as there is nothing to explain. No schema-based ambiguity exists.

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 ('요약합니다' — summarizes) and names the exact resources covered: overlays, playback items, subtitles, sync calibration, styles, and window position tracking contract. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that each handle a single aspect (e.g., now_playing, list_subtitles) by signaling it is a comprehensive state summary.

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 phrase '한 번에 요약합니다' (summarizes at once) implies the tool is for getting an overall status snapshot, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage largely to inference.

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