get_mcp_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what the call surfaces (identity, version, runtime paths, supported scope, asset health) — effectively standing in for the missing output schema — though it does not mention cost, latency, or whether the health check performs live probing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the reported items are listed compactly. The jargon ("CP server", "required asset health") costs a little clarity for no structural gain.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the reported fields, which is adequate for a zero-parameter read. However, an agent still cannot tell what form those fields take (flat keys? nested paths? pass/fail health?), and "CP" and "required asset health" are never resolved.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter schema applies. No parameter wording is misleading or contradictory.

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?

"Report" plus an enumerated set of reported facts (identity, version, runtime paths, supported scope, asset health) gives a concrete verb and resource, and it is clearly distinct from the brand/asset creation and QA siblings. The one deduction is the undefined acronym "CP" and the vague phrase "required asset health", which leave the resource partly ambiguous.

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 never says when to call this tool — no mention of diagnostics, troubleshooting, startup verification, or pre-flight checks — and it names no alternative or exclusion. An agent must infer that this is a status/introspection call purely from the name and the word "live".

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