interactive_viewer_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Report whether... is still active' clearly signals a non-mutating status query, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid or stale viewer_id values, return format, or whether the status check can block or poll.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids repeating the tool name or schema fields.

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 simple one-parameter status check, the description conveys the core behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around the return value and viewer_id provenance, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the viewer_id parameter beyond implying it identifies the viewer window. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation with details on where the ID comes from or what values are valid.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('whether a standalone MoonRay viewer window is still active'). It clearly distinguishes this status-check tool from sibling tools like launch_interactive_viewer, stop_interactive_viewer, and capture_interactive_viewer_snapshot.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining a viewer_id from launch_interactive_viewer. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and status-reporting behavior.

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