get_system_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the returned data: MCP server status, scan engine availability, and runtime environment, and notes the JSON format. This provides adequate transparency for a read-only status 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 clear and structured with separated Chinese and English sections, though slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but not overly long.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema (implied), the description covers the purpose and return data thoroughly. No gaps identified for a simple status endpoint.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema covers 100% of interface details. The description does not need to add param semantics. Baseline 4 applies.

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 explicitly states it retrieves system status and scan engine information, including MCP server status, engine availability, and runtime environment. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_scan or list_vulnerabilities, which focus on specific actions or data types.

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 system health and engine status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools are all action-oriented or data-specific, the context makes usage clear enough.

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