civ_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. It indicates this is a status/diagnostic tool, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is safe or side-effect free. It adds context about what is reported but lacks details on limitations or prerequisites.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and delivers the core purpose without any filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

This is a simple diagnostic tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains what it reports (where data is looked for and what is visible). No additional information is necessary for an agent to call it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('CivMCP's data locations'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like rules_query or civ_tuner_status by focusing on data visibility rather than rule 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 implies it is for checking where data is located, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, so usage context is only implied.

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