Standalone instance status

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is low, yet the description adds almost nothing: it does not say what 'state' comprises, whether results are cached or live-sampled, or how the default quantities get resolved. 'Plus live values' is the only extra hint and it is not elaborated.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is arguably too terse for a status tool with two optional parameters, leaving the reader under-informed rather than efficiently informed.

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 need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, but the description still omits sibling differentiation and what 'state' versus 'live values' actually covers, which matters given the crowded standalone_* tool family.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (instance, quantities) are already documented with defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or default-resolution detail 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?

Identifies the resource (standalone instance) and idea of reporting state plus live values, but the phrasing 'State of... plus live values' is vague about what is actually returned and never distinguishes this from siblings like cm_status, cm_live, or cm_standalone_servers.

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 indication of when to call this versus cm_status, cm_live, or the other standalone_* tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent has to guess based on the name alone.

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