crystal_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally; 'Read-only' merely restates it. The one piece of added behavior is the ordering constraint ('call first'), which is useful but thin — no auth, caching, or failure behavior is described.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the imperative 'Read-only; call first' is placed at the end for emphasis. The only cost is that the content list is dense jargon rather than tight prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety semantics. What remains missing is what the tool is for relative to its five siblings and what the cryptic fields mean — a status/setup tool should at least say it precedes crystal_plan/crystal_run.

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; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. No parameter meaning is needed or missing.

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 is a noun phrase listing what the tool surfaces (version, device, available models, element coverage, charge support, weight licence), which conveys the general purpose but never states a verb or a plain-language summary. The jargon ('charge support', 'weight licence') is opaque and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like crystal_help or crystal_inspect.

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?

'call first' does give one genuine usage cue — invoke this before the other tools as a discovery/setup step. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not condition, so the agent must still infer when crystal_help or crystal_inspect would be better.

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