faber_server_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] server health and service status,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether it's safe for frequent use. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the essential action and target, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, response format) and doesn't address usage relative to siblings, leaving the agent with incomplete context to operate effectively in a complex server management environment.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'server' documented as optional and defaulting to 'defaultServer.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or context for server names. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('server health and service status'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'faber_check_app' or 'faber_service_restart', which might also relate to health/status checks, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'faber_check_app' and 'faber_service_restart' that could overlap in monitoring or troubleshooting contexts, there's no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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