vunit_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by saying 'Report' rather than implying mutation. It adds useful context by stating what configuration items are inspected and candidly notes that simulator availability is only 'appears available,' setting proper expectations about the check's certainty.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's exact purpose and report contents, while the second gives a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for a zero-parameter status tool. It covers what the tool reports, when to call it, and the tentative nature of the simulator-availability check. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be in the description.

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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. This matches the baseline for no-parameter tools; the description focuses on output content rather than input handling, which is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Report' and identifies a clear resource: server configuration. It enumerates the exact content (project dir, run script, interpreter, VUnit version, simulator availability), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that list tests, compile, run, or fetch reports.

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 instruction 'Call this first when diagnosing setup problems' explicitly states when to invoke the tool. It also implies a sequencing role relative to the sibling tools, providing clear usage guidance without needing to mention every alternative.

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