status

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

The description discloses that the tool reports on three specific areas: permissions, OCR availability, and game-window status. Since this is a report/read-only style tool and no annotations exist to contradict it, the main risk is mitigated. However, it doesn't clarify whether the tool is purely non-destructive, what 'verified game-window status' precisely entails, or whether it might trigger side effects (e.g., launching/attaching to a game). With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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?

A single, focused sentence that enumerates exactly what the tool reports. Zero waste, front-loaded with the verb, and covers the three key outputs (permissions, OCR, game-window). This is exemplary economy for a no-argument status tool.

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?

The tool takes no parameters and has an output schema (which presumably documents return values), so the description only needs to explain what the tool reports on. It does that concisely. Given zero complexity in inputs, the description is adequate and slightly above baseline since it teases out the three distinct report areas, but it could be more complete about the resolved status semantics (e.g., 'verified' meaning).

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 with 100% schema coverage (empty schema is fully captured). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by explaining what the status output covers. There's nothing more to document about parameters, so this is appropriately handled.

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 clear verb ('report') with a specific resource focus: permissions, OCR availability, and game-window status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are action-oriented (screenshot, type_text, press_key), making it clearly a state-inspection tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings that could overlap, like read_screen.

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 this is a status/health-check tool (check permissions, OCR, game-window), giving usable context for when to invoke it. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives for related inspection tasks. The usage context is reasonably clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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