server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what the response conveys (roots, capability set) and by asserting that the server makes no Claude API calls — a behavioral/privacy guarantee not present in the annotations. It says nothing about output structure, but for a zero-parameter status read that is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a trivial status tool. The final clause ('and that this server makes no Claude API calls') reads as a claim about the server rather than a description of a returned field, which slightly muddies the sentence's function.

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, non-destructive introspection tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the definition supplies enough to select and call it correctly. The only missing element is a hint about the shape of the returned status (e.g. a structured summary of roots and capabilities).

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 takes no parameters, so per the baseline the schema carries the full burden and the description need only avoid misleading the agent. It does not imply any inputs 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 names the specific resource being reported — roots and caps (capabilities) of this server — under the verb 'Show', so it is distinguishable from the list_*/read_* siblings that deal with content rather than server metadata. It stops short of a fully crisp statement such as 'report server configuration and capability set', and the trailing privacy assertion blurs the purpose slightly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting server configuration/capabilities rather than for listing directories or sources. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for adjacent introspection needs.

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