vroid_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool is 'Cheap and side-effect free (no OCR, no input)' and describes the side effects of the `focused` flag on other tools, as well as the external helper dependencies it reports. This is transparent and thorough, even anticipating edge cases.

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 well-structured into three clear parts: primary purpose, usage guidance, and helper reporting. It front-loads the most critical information (status report) and continues with actionable context. Every sentence adds value—'Cheap and side-effect free' justifies frequent use, and the helper list tells the agent what to expect. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema (which covers return format), this description provides all necessary context: what it reports, when to use it, side effects on other tools, and external dependencies. It even explains how `focused` false affects subsequent acting tools and how to recover. The tool is simple, and the description fully covers its use.

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 the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and usage rather than parameter details. No parameter explanations are needed, and the description does not introduce any parameter ambiguity.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Report whether VRoid Studio is running, focused, and where it sits.' The verb 'Report' is specific, the resource (VRoid Studio) is clear, and the scope is distinct from the acting sibling tools (vroid_launch, vroid_click, etc.), which perform actions rather than status checks.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'use it before anything else, and after anything that might have lost focus.' It also explains the consequence of `focused` false and names the alternative (vroid_launch) that can restore focus. This is clear, actionable usage guidance that distinguishes it from other tools.

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