xbox_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, side-effect-free read, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the enumerated result values but leaves unanswered whether the query is live or cached and whether polling a networked console can itself wake it, which is a meaningful concern for this tool family.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the core question, and the answer is spelled out immediately after. Nothing extraneous.

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 tool with an output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description covers purpose and result domain adequately. The main residual gap is not stating whether a sleeping console is reachable or how a probe affects it.

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?

The description names a specific resource (the Xbox) and states exactly what is reported: power state (on/asleep/off) and the running game or app. That is enough to distinguish it from the sibling mutation tools xbox_launch, xbox_power_request and xbox_power_confirm, though it never says so explicitly.

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 question form 'Is it on, and what runs?' implies the read-before-acting use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of checking state before launching or powering off, and no stated exclusions.

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