get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: this is a liveness/health probe that also reports whether risk-level-3 operations (audio capture) are permitted. That gating semantics is meaningful context an agent could not infer. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effects, but 'Check' plus the heartbeat framing makes that clear enough.

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?

Two compact sentences: the purpose-plus-contents sentence is front-loaded and the imperative directive follows. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must hint at returns, and it does by listing heartbeat, open project, and risk-level enablement. It omits the response shape/format, which is a minor gap for a no-param status probe.

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 there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('the bridge is alive inside REAPER') and enumerates what the check covers: heartbeat, open project, and whether risk-level-3 commands such as audio capture are enabled. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_context (project context) and capture_track_audio (the gated operation).

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?

'Call this first' gives an explicit ordering directive, which is strong usage guidance for a preflight tool. It stops short of naming when not to call it or an alternative, so it does not reach the top of the scale.

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