server_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the scope of data returned (power state, CPU, RAM, etc.), which is useful but does not cover details like response format or behavior when `server_id` is null.

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 lists the key information categories. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient information about the data returned. It lacks an explicit mention of the `server_id` parameter and any edge cases, but overall is reasonably complete given the tool's low complexity.

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 schema has one parameter `server_id` with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning or default behavior, relying on the parameter name to convey that it identifies the server. This is minimal compensation.

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 the tool retrieves power state, CPU, RAM, disk, network, and game-query information for a server, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from power control and capabilities, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `server_details`.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like `server_details` or `power`. It simply lists what it gets, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name.

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