server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data and "performs no mutation" largely restates it. The description does add what categories of data are surfaced, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown or unreachable server, auth failures, or latency. Against an already-rich annotation set, this is adequate but not additive.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the data categories and the no-mutation guarantee. No filler, no redundancy, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 simple read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and data categories sufficiently to call it. What it omits is any hint of the response shape or failure modes, which matters more here precisely because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains the WISP server ID and the configured WISP_SERVER_ID fallback. With zero parameters requiring description-side compensation and the schema doing the work, the baseline applies and there is no gap to penalize.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Read the current runtime state and resource usage for one server." It then enumerates the concrete signals returned (power state, CPU, memory, disk, network, game-query), which lets an agent recognize it as a monitoring tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as server_details or list_servers, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Use for power state, CPU, memory, disk, network, and game-query checks" gives a clear positive usage context, and "this performs no mutation" rules out write scenarios. However, no alternative is named and no exclusion is stated, so an agent comparing this against server_details or list_servers must infer the boundary itself.

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