flipper_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly states the tool is non-connecting and lists what it reports (serial ports on macOS/Linux/Windows, WinUSB fallback, and connected status). It does not describe the output format, but for a read-only status check, this is adequate 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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action ('Report how the Flipper can be reached'). The second sentence adds the key non-behavior ('Does not open a connection'), which is essential for differentiating from sibling tools. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It explains the full scope of what is reported (serial ports, WinUSB fallback, connection status) and clarifies a critical behavioral boundary (no connection). This gives an agent all the context needed to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none are needed. The schema is empty, and the description fully explains the tool's scope without requiring parameter details.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('how the Flipper can be reached' and connection status). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning serial ports, WinUSB fallback, and stating 'Does not open a connection,' which differentiates it from flipper_connect.

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 for when to use the tool: to check reachability and connection status without actually connecting. The exclusion 'Does not open a connection' implies a contrast with flipper_connect, though it does not name alternatives explicitly. This is sufficient for a simple status checks.

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