server_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that engine values are stable for the process lifetime and health values change per call. It also notes that diagnostic metadata should not be surfaced unless asked, showing awareness of implications.

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 long but front-loaded with the main purpose. The detailed breakdown of fields is necessary given no output schema, but it could be more concise by grouping related information. Every sentence provides value, but the length affects readability.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value structure for engine, imageDiff, and health fields, including units and examples. It also covers the optional parameter and its effects, making the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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% for the single 'include' parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the allowable values ('envelope', 'raw') and their effects, as well as default behavior. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 starts with 'Return MCP server status' which clearly states the verb and resource. It then lists specific fields like engine, imageDiff, and health, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with browser, desktop, and other operations.

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 description explicitly states 'do not surface unless the user asks about performance/troubleshooting', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context of siblings suggests no similar tool exists.

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