remarkable_check_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's return values: cache existence, document count, and rmc/cairo availability, giving the agent a concrete sense of what to expect. It also implies a read-only diagnostic nature, though it doesn't explicitly state side-effect safety.

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 the first defining the action and the second adding return details and usage context. Every word contributes value, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant phrasing.

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 status tool, the description covers its purpose, return fields, and recommended usage context. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to elaborate on return structure. It's fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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, so the description doesn't need to explain any argument semantics. With no params, the score is baseline 4 as per guidelines.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check reMarkable system status and tool availability.' This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools that list documents, get info, or render pages. It also adds detail about what it returns ('cache exists, document count, rmc/cairo availability'), reinforcing its unique diagnostic role.

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 advises 'Use this to diagnose issues before rendering,' which gives a clear when-to-use context. It identifies the tool as a pre-rendering diagnostic without requiring exclusions, since sibling tools handle actual rendering or document listing. This is clear guidance, though it doesn't name alternatives in the same sentence.

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