ac_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure; it implies a read-only probe and enumerates the three result fields (camera, time, car), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says what happens when acs.exe is not running — whether the tool errors, returns a false flag, or times out — which is the key behavioral question for a health probe.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary check and enumerates the secondary ones in a parenthetical. No filler, nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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-param probe with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the returned fields, which is the main thing needed. It falls short on failure semantics and on how its output differs from ac_get_state, leaving an agent unsure which to call when checking game 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 tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with 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 names three concrete checks: whether acs.exe is running, whether the bridge is alive with a session loaded, and the last heartbeat (camera, time, car). That is a specific, recognizable health-check rather than a tautology. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling ac_get_state, which an agent could easily confuse with a status query.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus ac_get_state, ac_launch, or the camera/time siblings. The health-check intent is inferable but never stated, and no preconditions or follow-up actions are described.

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