Get router status

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

Despite minimal annotations, the description explicitly states 'Read-only local state' and 'Does not call downstream MCP servers (not open-world),' which are critical behavioral traits for an agent deciding whether this is safe to invoke. This goes beyond what the title and annotations alone convey.

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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral constraints without wasted words. The primary outcome is front-loaded, and every remaining clause adds decision-relevant context.

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?

For a zero-parameter status probe with an output schema, this is complete: it states what is returned, when to use it, what it does not do, and how it relates to sibling tools. No additional context is needed for correct selection and invocation.

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 for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter-level semantics because there are no parameters to document.

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 ('Return') and names the exact resource: SuperAgenticMCP router health. It enumerates concrete output contents (version, process status, racked server count) and explicitly contrasts itself with list_rack for the actual catalog, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 explicitly directs when to use the tool: 'Use this as a connectivity probe before list_rack or route_task.' It also tells the agent to pair with list_rack for the catalog, providing clear guidance on which sibling to use for a different purpose.

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