xchat_status

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is read-only ('opens the resulting SQLite file read-only'), asserts 'Nothing is sent, marked read, or modified', and explains the local decryption context. This is exemplary transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, behavior details, output shape, and configuration. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence carries meaningful information—no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having zero parameters and an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, expected outputs (state, database_path, conversation_count, last_updated, discovery), and configuration prerequisites. This is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds useful configuration context via environment variables (XCHAT_BROWSER, XCHAT_BROWSER_PROFILE, XCHAT_DATABASE_PATH), though these are not formal parameters. No schema coverage issues exist.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Check whether XChat (encrypted DMs) can be read on this machine.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xchat_list_conversations and xchat_get_history by focusing on readability/status rather than content retrieval.

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 clear context: it is a pre-flight check for accessing XChat local storage, and it explains the discovery flow when no store is configured. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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