get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Diagnostica' implies a read-only inspection but the description doesn't confirm nature, side effects, or output shape. It lists categories (config, provider, tmux, dir log) but does not explain what is returned or any auth/rate-limit implications.

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?

Very short but under-specified — one fragment inside parentheses listing categories rather than a full sentence. Front-loaded with 'Diagnostica' but the parenthetical adds ambiguity rather than value.

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?

No annotations, no param schema detail, but an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. Still, for a diagnostic tool aimed at troubleshooting, the description fails to state what the output contains, when to invoke, or how it relates to sibling tools.

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?

Zero parameters, so by rule this dimension has a baseline of 4. No parameter semantics are needed.

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 says 'Diagnostica del server MCP (config, provider, tmux, dir log)' — a vague purpose statement that doesn't specify a verb or clearly define what diagnostics it returns. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning MCP-level config/provider/tmux/log, but it remains ambiguous how it differs from other low-level tools like list_hosts or ping.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance provided. An agent has no way to know if this should be called prior to other operations or only during troubleshooting.

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