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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses specific behavioral details: 'Effects: read-only; writes no files; no auth or network required' and 'format changes rendering only.' It also clarifies that it reports the running server version, not a guessed version, adding useful context.

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 well-structured, starting with purpose, then usage, inputs, and effects. It is slightly repetitive (e.g., 'Use this as the first tool...' and later 'Use: call first...'), but every sentence adds value and no unnecessary filler exists.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, inputs, and effects, and the output schema exists to specify return values. It leaves a minor gap in explaining the 'prompt' format's meaning, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already describes the 'format' parameter with an enum and a (though truncated) description. The tool description adds 'format changes rendering only' and 'no project path is required,' but does not fully compensate for the incomplete schema description of the 'prompt' option. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 reports the exact running Axint MCP server version, package path, uptime, registered tool count, and reload/update instructions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like axint.run.status by focusing on the server process itself and explicitly excludes being an npm/PyPI lookup.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'call first or after an MCP reload to prove the connected server version' and when not to use: 'do not use as an npm/PyPI lookup.' However, it does not name alternative tools, so it stops short of fully meeting the 'alternatives' criterion.

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