mco_gateway_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Show' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists what information is returned, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, auth requirements, or whether the operation might have performance implications (e.g., pinging servers).

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient detail about the return content (running/stopped, PID, tool count, uptime). It lacks only a more explicit distinction from sibling tools, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no input is needed, and it does not need to explain parameter details because there are none.

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 ('Show') and a specific resource ('status of all MCO sub-servers'), listing key fields (running/stopped, PID, tool count, uptime). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mco_list_servers or mco_status by focusing on sub-server status 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?

The description clearly implies a monitoring/status-checking use case, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. With sibling tools like mco_status and mco_list_servers available, some additional guidance on when to choose this over others would be helpful.

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