server_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: engine values are stable for process lifetime, health values change per call, and it explains what fields like 'pending' mean. It also notes limitations like HTTP transport not tracked.

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 somewhat verbose with detailed technical values and timing examples. While front-loaded, it could be trimmed without losing essential information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is extremely comprehensive, covering all return fields, their semantics, and behavior. It fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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% and the description does not add extra meaning for the 'include' parameter beyond what the schema already provides. The description focuses on return fields rather than enhancing parameter understanding.

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 MCP server status with specific components (engine, imageDiff, health). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools (browser, desktop, etc.) as a diagnostic 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?

The description explicitly says 'Diagnostic metadata — do not surface unless the user asks about performance/troubleshooting,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. No explicit alternatives are given, but the context is clear.

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