screenstudio_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the tool works even when the app is closed, and it surfaces permissions/dependency diagnostics an agent would otherwise have to probe for. It does not, however, describe response format or failure modes.

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?

'Start here' is front-loaded and the enumeration that follows is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what state is available. The long comma-separated list is slightly run-on but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing what is returned, and it does so comprehensively across connection, version, editor state, recording state, dependencies, permissions, features, recipes, and brand kits. Annotations cover safety, so nothing material is missing for a status tool.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify on the input side. No parameter-related guidance is needed or missing.

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 states a clear entry-point purpose ('Start here') and enumerates the concrete state it reports: connection, app version/tested-build status, open editor windows, recording state, dependency helpers, permissions, supported features, recipes, and brand kits. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like screenstudio_recipes or screenstudio_brand because this is the aggregate diagnostic surface rather than a management tool.

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?

'Start here' explicitly tells the agent to call this first, and 'Works when the app is closed' gives a concrete condition under which it is the right tool. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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