geck_status_bar

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Read' makes the non-mutating nature clear, and 'when available' usefully signals that selected-object coordinates are conditional. However, it does not mention prerequisites such as GECK needing to be running, or what happens when no coordinates are available.

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 of about 16 words with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the conditional coordinate detail. Every phrase contributes to understanding the 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 is simple and an output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be in the description. However, the overall context is incomplete because backend parameter semantics are unexplained and there is no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling status-bar-related tools.

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 schema has one optional backend parameter with a default of 'win32' and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what backend means or what values are acceptable, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The impact is lessened because the parameter is optional with a default, but the semantics are still undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Read GECK's bottom status bar', and adds meaningful scope with 'including selected object coordinates when available'. It is distinguishable from the mutation/planning siblings that consume the status bar, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus related siblings like geck_placement_plan_from_status_bar or geck_esp_patch_ref_to_status_bar. Usage is only implied as 'need current status bar info', with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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