mechanical_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The leading '[READ ONLY]' explicitly signals a non-mutating operation, which is valuable context. It does not describe further traits, but for a simple status tool this is adequate.

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 concise: a bracketed read-only flag and a single informative sentence. Every word adds value, and the key behavioral note is front-loaded.

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, read-only status tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It states the operation, the resource being inspected, and the non-mutating nature. No critical information is missing.

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 semantic burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies, and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('MCP and Mechanical connection state'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like 'connect_mechanical' (an action) and 'workbench_status' (a different status scope), so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening schemas.

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 'Report connection state' gives clear context: use this when you need to inspect whether MCP and Mechanical are connected. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter status check the intended usage is straightforward.

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