piano_roll_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only status check and the intent to verify installation/reachability, which implies no mutation. It does not state the return format or what happens when the bridge is unreachable, leaving a minor transparency gap.

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?

Two tight sentences: the primary behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds actionable context. No wordiness 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 simple zero-parameter health check, it states what it checks and when to call it. The only missing piece is a precise return-value/status contract, but the usage context and simple scope make the definition sufficiently complete.

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 and an empty schema, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. This is the appropriate baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific action ('Report') on a specific resource ('file-based piano-roll bridge') with a clear object ('installed/reachable'). It is clearly a status tool rather than one of the piano_roll editing tools, though it does not explicitly name overlapping status siblings like fl_bridge_info.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: verify the pyscript is in place before issuing edits. It does not mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative health-check tools, so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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