server_lifecycle_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Report' implies a read-only, observational call, which is useful but not fully explicit. It does not state whether the call is safe to invoke at any time, whether it can block, or what 'catalog state' entails.

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 11-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and lists all covered state domains. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description lists the four state domains, but it does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling diagnostics tools, what 'bridge' or 'catalog' refer to in context, or whether it aggregates other status endpoints. This makes it minimally viable but not fully contextualized.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none, and the empty input schema fully confirms this.

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 ('Report') and names a clear resource: Ghost server lifecycle, transport, bridge, and catalog state. It is reasonably clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like server_transport_diagnostics or server_operation_status, which are also status-oriented.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions are mentioned. The description only states what the tool reports, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate call context from the tool name and sibling list.

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