cyd_sd_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the operation is read-only via 'Read' and 'Observation', and it notes the card is optional and FAT, implying the result may be negative when no card is present. However, it does not describe the return format or any failure/error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for a tool without an output schema.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded. Each clause adds relevant context: machine scope, observation type, and the exact subject being read. There is no filler or repetition.

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 status read, the description says enough to invoke the tool correctly: it identifies the exact condition being checked. The only minor gap is that the return value is not explicitly specified, but 'whether' strongly implies a boolean or status indicator, so this is not a serious omission.

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 input schema has zero properties and the description requires no inputs, so there is no parameter semantics burden at all. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the description creates confusion.

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 verb ('Read') and a specific resource state ('whether the optional FAT microSD card was mounted safely at boot'). The 'Machine-specific (cyd)' and 'Observation, L3' tags further clarify that this is a targeted read-only status check, making it easy to distinguish from the many sibling control and diagnostics tools.

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 clearly frames this as an observation tool for a cyd-specific SD-card mount check. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling status tools like cyd_runtime_status or arcl_status, but the narrow resource wording makes the intended use obvious without needing exclusions.

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