fsuipc_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns 'layer health' and 'list of known offset keys', which gives some idea of output. However, it does not clarify if the health check involves actual connectivity or what constitutes a healthy state. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (implied), the description covers the two main outputs: health and list of keys. It is complete for a simple status tool, though it could briefly mention that the health check is for the FSUIPC layer's operational state.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description adds value by indicating what the tool returns (health + keys), which is not obvious from the empty schema.

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 provides 'FSUIPC layer health plus the list of built-in known offset keys', specifying the verb (provides health/list) and the resources (FSUIPC layer status and offset keys). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fsuipc_read_known which reads specific keys, and connection_status which only checks connection.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that it is for checking health and listing available keys, but gives no guidance on prerequisites or sequencing (e.g., use before other FSUIPC operations). This is a minor gap for a simple informational tool.

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