client_busy_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 states the tool checks responsiveness and blocking but does not mention whether it is read-only, what it returns, whether it waits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 sentence with no wasted words, making it very concise. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail. It is structured as a straightforward statement but lacks any breakdown of parameters or usage scenarios.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal description, the definition is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how to interpret the status, or when to prefer this over siblings like wait_client_idle. The two parameters are undocumented, and no behavioral or usage context is provided.

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 input schema has two parameters (session_id and probe_timeout) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention them at all. No meaning, format, or expected values are provided, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to use these parameters.

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 states the tool checks two specific conditions: whether the 1C client/bridge is responsive and whether a dangerous action is blocking the interface. It uses a specific verb 'Check' and names the exact resource, distinguishing it from siblings like wait_client_idle which implies waiting rather than checking.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as wait_client_idle or session_status. There are no explicit conditions for when this tool is preferred, nor any exclusions. The context of checking status is implied, but not enough to route an agent correctly.

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