Server Status

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses it reports server state including resources, graph size, and available actions. No mention of return format, latency, or whether state could change between calls, but the read-only nature is implicitly clear. Reasonably transparent for a simple status tool.

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?

Two sentences, succinct and front-loaded with purpose, then usage advice. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

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 this is a simple zero-parameter status check with sibling context like 'scan' and 'load', the description fully covers what the agent needs to decide to call it first. No output schema exists but the description lists what will be returned (resource load state, graph size, actions).

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?

No parameters to document, schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info but also has no parameters needing explanation. Baseline 3 for no parameters applies; a slight bonus for mentioning what the tool checks (graph size, resources) which adds meaning beyond the empty 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?

Description uses specific verb ('check') with a concrete resource (the server state: resources loaded, graph size, available actions). Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan' or 'load' by establishing this as the initial status/introspection tool.

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?

Explicitly advises calling this tool first to understand what tools are available, providing clear when-to-use guidance. Absence of when-not-to is acceptable given this is a no-parameter status check with no destructive side effects.

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