Check Slap-My-Bot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'do not poll' (a behavioral constraint not in annotations) and 'last observed counts', implying cached/observed data rather than live state. This adds useful context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences with no waste: the first lists what it returns, the second gives the usage constraint. The key information is front-loaded and the entire definition is appropriately brief for a simple getter.

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 read-only getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the purpose and usage condition. It could specify exact field names or return format, but the phrase 'desktop readiness, active window and last observed counts' is sufficient for a diagnostic tool. The sibling set clarifies its role. Minor gap: no mention of what 'counts' refers to, but this is acceptable.

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 schema description coverage is trivially 100%. There is nothing to explain about parameters, and the description correctly focuses on the returned data. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description meets it.

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 it provides 'Desktop readiness, active window and last observed counts' — a clear resource (status) with specific attributes. It distinguishes from siblings (punish_for_mistake, set_slap_enabled) by being a getter, though it doesn't explicitly name a verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch'. The title 'Check Slap-My-Bot' reinforces the intent.

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?

Explicitly states 'Only use when asked to diagnose; do not poll,' which gives a clear when-to-use condition and a prohibition. It doesn't name alternatives, but the sibling names (punish, set) make it evident this is the diagnostic read tool. The guidance is sufficient for routing.

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