Check if Path of Building 2 is running

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses a key behavioral subtlety: the check is by process name, not verified against a confirmed process name, so a false result is not definitive. Also noting that the response contains 'checkedNames' gives agents useful interpretation context.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value: the best-effort caveat, the false-negative warning, and the routing to import_pob_build.

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 no-argument, read-only probe with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what is checked, how to interpret a false result, the presence of checkedNames in the response, and where to go for actual build data. Nothing material is missing.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter detail to document. The 0-params baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on output interpretation instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('running Path of Building 2 process'), and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling import_pob_build by calling itself informational only. This prevents an agent from mistaking the tool for one that returns build data.

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 explicitly says this is a best-effort informational check and directs agents to use import_pob_build when they actually need build data. This gives both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use signal, and names the relevant alternative.

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