server_status

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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden. It fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns performance metrics for different engines (e.g., native vs PowerShell for UIA), the result being stable per session, and response shape options via the include parameter. No contradictions.

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?

Description is moderately lengthy but well-structured: first sentence gives purpose, followed by detailed performance stats. Every sentence adds value, but some details (like exact millisecond times) could be considered secondary. Still, it's effective and not wasteful.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the return data (version, engine availability, etc.) adequately. It also covers parameter behavior and stability. However, it does not specify the exact JSON structure of the response, leaving some interpretation to the agent.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'include' parameter. The description does not add additional semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it returns server status including version, native engine availability, and other states. It uses specific terms like 'UIA', 'imageDiff', and 'Auto Perception' which precisely define the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly action-oriented (browser, desktop).

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 once per session due to stability, and instructs not to surface values to users unless asked about performance. This is actionable guidance that helps the agent decide when to invoke the tool and how to handle results.

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