swebsy_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a summary by default and can optionally return the full settings object via the verbose parameter. It also implies a read-only nature (reporting status) and gives a practical tip about waiting for editorReady, which is helpful behavioral context.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the main purpose. The usage tip is added as a second sentence without unnecessary verbosity. 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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns and how to use it for readiness checks. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but that is implied. Overall, it is complete enough for effective invocation.

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 schema already describes the only parameter (verbose) with its default and purpose. The description adds a little context by explaining what the default summary answers ('am I connected and what is open?'), but since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides minimal additional value beyond the 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 reports bridge status, siteName, selected page, editorReady, and a theme summary. It distinguishes it from other tools by focusing on status reporting, not editing or listing. Could be more specific about being a diagnostic/read-only tool, but it is clear enough.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: after creating or opening a site, wait until editorReady is true and siteId matches the expected site before editing. This implies it is used for checking readiness, which is useful. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but given the sibling list, status is unique.

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