Pastea Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds that the check is scoped to 'this Mac' (local, not remote) and that the response includes remediation guidance when the check fails. That is genuine value beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about response shape or failure modes of the check itself.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the core question (reachable/connected) and then the follow-up value (remediation). Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 probe with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers what the tool answers and that it includes next-step advice. It stops short of describing what 'connected' means or what the remediation content looks like, a minor gap given the simplicity of the 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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Reports') plus a concrete subject ('whether Pastea is reachable and connected on this Mac'), so an agent immediately knows this is a local health/connectivity check. There are no siblings to differentiate from, so the lack of routing language costs nothing.

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 'what to do if it is not' implies the tool should be called when Pastea seems unreachable, which is implied usage rather than an explicit when/when-not statement. With no alternatives existing, there is nothing to route against, but the trigger condition is never spelled out.

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