get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned (server status, model availability, session counts, cache path), which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds some behavioral value but leaves gaps for a tool that queries server state.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a structured list of return values. The bilingual format (Czech and English) adds slight redundancy but doesn't significantly impact clarity. Every sentence earns its place by specifying what information is returned.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema implied by the 'Returns' section), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and details the return values, which compensates for the lack of annotations. Since an output schema exists (implied by the structured return description), the description doesn't need to explain return format further. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the return values. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as there's no parameter information to add beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Vrátí informace o stavu Anonymix MCP serveru a dostupnosti modelů' (Returns information about the status of the Anonymix MCP server and model availability). It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('server status and model availability'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_gui' which might also provide status information in a different context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'start_gui' (which might launch a GUI with status info) or other tools that might indirectly indicate server status. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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