Mne Check Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what the tool reports (versions, runtime directories) which is helpful, but does not mention whether it makes network calls, has side effects, or how long it might take. It does not contradict any annotations since none exist, but it omits some behavioral details that could be useful.

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 extremely concise, only two sentences, and front-loads the key content about what is checked. It includes the 'Call this first' guidance which is crucial. Every word earns its place, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no side effects), the description is mostly complete. With an output schema present, return values are likely documented otherwise. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of side effects or permission needs, but for a status-checking tool, this is a minor shortfall.

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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially). There is no parameter information to add, so the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose and output. No need for parameter details.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks MNE MCP capabilities including versions of relevant libraries and runtime directories. The verb 'check' plus the resource 'MNE MCP capabilities' makes the purpose specific, and it naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like mne_session_info or mne_get_config which are likely more focused on session/config 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 instruction 'Call this first' explicitly tells agents to invoke this tool before any other MNE operations, providing a clear usage context. It also implies the tool is for initial environment verification, setting expectations for when to use it.

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