arcl_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral detail: time_control is 'none', the board has no frame counter, so frame is null. It also enumerates reported fields; it stops short of stating explicit read-only guarantees or error behavior, but 'Report' strongly implies a non-mutating diagnostic call.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The purpose and returned values are front-loaded, and the time_control/frame caveat is placed at the end where it adds necessary precision.

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 parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it lists what will be reported and explains the unusual null frame case. Missing details such as exact response formatting or failure modes are minor for this simple read-only diagnostic.

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 per calibration the baseline is 4. The description contains no parameter-specific information, but none is needed because there is no input schema to clarify.

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 states a specific reporting verb and lists concrete resources: machine id, enabled layers, current view/foreground app, and MicroPython app runtime. The 'Common (arcl)... any layer' preamble gives scope and helps distinguish it from CYD-specific siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 'Common (arcl), any layer' implies this is the general arcl status entry point rather than a CYD-specific one, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings like cyd_runtime_status. Usage context is implied rather than stated as clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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