native_backend_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those. It adds value beyond the annotations by revealing that the tool reports fallback reasons, which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction is present.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words; the primary outcome (active status) appears first, and the fallback-reason detail follows naturally. It is appropriately sized for a simple status tool.

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's low complexity, zero parameters, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and an existing output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. Nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('in-process C++ desktop bridge') and the exact result: whether it is active or why Python is the fallback. This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like ahk_status and wsl_status by naming the bridge/fallback concern.

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 a diagnostic/status-check usage scenario but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling status tools or when not to use it. It gives context (checking native backend vs Python fallback) without naming alternatives or exclusions.

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