get_beam_scope_mcp_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context about the BEAM_SCOPE_MCP_PORT env var dependency, but it does not describe what 'server details' includes, the expected return format, behavior when not connected, or whether the operation is purely read-only (though 'check' implies no side effects).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a valuable configuration note without redundancy. No wasted words.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is decent but lacks specific return details—what exactly are 'server details'? It would benefit from listing fields like node name, port, or connection state. Without an output schema, the description should compensate, but it remains somewhat vague.

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?

There are zero parameters, giving a baseline of 4. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters since the input schema is empty, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 the tool's function: 'Check if connected to an Elixir app and get server details.' This uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource ('connection to Elixir app', 'server details'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect_beam_scope_mcp which establishes the connection.

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 usage context is implied: use when you need to verify connectivity. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., connect_beam_scope_mcp), nor any mention of when not to use it. The additional env var configuration hint is helpful for setup but does not clarify tool selection.

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