iterm2_status

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

With no annotations provided and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Check[s]' status, implying it's a non-destructive read operation, but it doesn't disclose what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean, status message, error type). For a diagnostic tool, the return format is meaningful and unstated.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, well-suited for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool. Could arguably add a brief note about the return value, but for its purpose the description is appropriately concise.

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 tool is simple (no params, no output schema, no annotations), so the description is fairly complete. However, for a status/health-check tool, understanding what 'ready' means and what the response indicates would help the agent decide follow-up actions. The absence of any return-format guidance leaves a notable gap.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema fully describes the input). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning. A baseline 4 is appropriate since there's nothing to document.

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 purpose: checking if the iTerm2 Python API is configured and ready. The verb 'Check' plus the resource 'iTerm2 Python API' is specific. It's a diagnostic/status tool, distinct from sibling tools which all perform terminal operations (send text, split pane, etc.).

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 implies this tool is a prerequisite check before using other iterm2 tools, but does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to. The sibling tools suggest it should be used before operations like iterm2_send_text, but the description doesn't name alternatives or provide exclusion guidance.

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