get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool checks bridges and counts, which implies a read-only diagnostics operation but does not explicitly state side effects, failure modes, or return behavior. It adds context about the live-game runtime probe but could be more transparent about safety and expected output.

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 tightly packed sentences. The first lists what the tool reports, the second provides usage guidance. No filler or repetition; every word earns its place.

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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the diagnostic nature implies a status report. This is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 sole parameter (probe_runtime) is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description independently mentions the live-game runtime bridge, which aligns with the parameter's purpose, but adds little beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides system status/diagnostics, listing specific components (editor bridge, live-game runtime bridge, tool count). This distinguishes it from siblings like editor_health_check or runtime_ping, which target only one subsystem.

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 explicitly says 'Use to debug connection issues,' giving a clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage scenario is well-defined.

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