black_souls_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which fully cover the tool's behavioral safety. The description adds no behavioral information beyond what is already in annotations, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 that immediately communicates the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is optimally concise.

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 tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple status inspection. However, mentioning that it is safe to call at any time would slightly improve context.

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 is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 'inspect' and identifies the resources ('BLACK SOULS MCP edition and live RGSS3 bridge status'), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform actions like launch, kill, or state retrieval, but could be more specific about what 'status' entails.

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 implies usage for checking system status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like black_souls_get_state or black_souls_health. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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