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

The description states that the tool returns state information Quietly, which aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides specifics on what data is returned, though it doesn't add much beyond the annotations. The behavior is transparent for a read-only tool.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output content. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured, making it easy for an agent to parse. No unnecessary details or filler.

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 provides sufficient context by listing the exact categories of information returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, tool counts). It doesn't explicitly mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a read-only informational tool with no parameters, this is adequate. The sibling tools (connect, authenticate, etc.) make it clear this is for status checks, so it is contextually complete enough.

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, and the description does not imply any. The empty schema is straightforward, and the description explains the output fully, so parameter semantics are not needed. This is perfect for a no-arg tool.

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 what the tool does: it returns the current toolkit state, specifying the types of information included (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and tool counts). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_version or connect, which have different purposes.

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 this tool is for checking the overall state of the toolkit, as opposed to action-oriented siblings like authenticate or connect. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the read-only nature and content make the usage context fairly clear.

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