bastion__status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose what the call returns: per-server connection state, exposed tool count, and the last error. Because there is no output schema, this return-content disclosure is valuable. It stops short of stating read-only/safety semantics or cost, but the verb 'Report' plus the diagnostic payload makes the non-mutating nature clear enough.

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, zero filler: the first front-loads what is reported and the second front-loads when to call it. Nothing repeats the name or restates structured fields.

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?

For a zero-param diagnostic with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies both the return payload shape and the invocation trigger, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain: it never explicitly confirms the operation is read-only or notes any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly does not invent argument semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and resource (health of every MCP server proxied by Bastion) and enumerates the exact statuses returned: connected, disconnected, reconnecting, failed. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like bastion__reconnect, bastion__security, and bastion__compliance.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: 'Call this when a tool seems to be missing or a server may have dropped mid-session.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it names no when-not condition or explicit alternative (e.g. reconnect) for the agent to route between.

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