Deck Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Current' and 'state' imply a read-only snapshot rather than a mutation, but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or note any prerequisites or latency characteristics. It is consistent and non-contradictory.

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 efficient sentence with three concrete data categories, all front-loaded and none wasted. Every clause adds information an agent can use.

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 no-argument status tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the main returned content areas. It loses a point because the lack of an explicit read-only statement and sibling differentiation leaves some selection context to be inferred.

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 there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The empty schema and 100% schema description coverage already make invocation unambiguous.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a status/snapshot resource for deck mapping, what is playing on each deck, and transport state. It is not a tautology of the title, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling status tools like live_status.

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 content implies use when the agent needs current per-deck state and transport information, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are provided. There are no exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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