Cura status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the returned fields are deliberately inert placeholders and startup intentionally skips reading Cura configuration. It stops short of describing the response shape, which no output schema supplies.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence carries distinct information (what it checks, what the fields mean, what it avoids doing). No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the meaning of the result, and naming the printer/profile/extruder/scene fields plus warning that they are placeholders goes a long way. It never states the actual ready/not-ready outcome contract, leaving a small gap for a status tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 verb and resource up front ('Check whether the local Cura bridge is ready'), which is far more precise than invoking the tool name. It also implicitly separates itself from siblings like printer_status ('does not contact a printer') and cura_inspect ('fields are placeholders, not live measurements'), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 conveys that this is a readiness/health check at startup, which implies when to call it, but it never states the condition that selects it over cura_inspect, cura_settings, or printer_status, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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