server_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. "Report" plus a zero-argument schema strongly implies a read-only snapshot with no side effects, and the enumerated checks tell the agent what dimensions are probed. However, it does not state whether the check is passive or actively probes the GPU/runtime (which could be slow), nor whether results are cached.

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; every item in the list is a distinct thing being checked. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, naming the five readiness dimensions effectively describes the return payload. The remaining gap is operational: no hint about cost/latency of the probe or how to interpret a not-ready result, which for a health check an agent may call in a retry loop would be useful.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully self-evident.

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?

"Report" is a specific verb and the resource is enumerated concretely: Hunyuan runtime, model cache, GPU dependencies, disk, and queue readiness. That is enough to distinguish it from the narrower siblings like get_queue_status or get_generation_status, though the description never explicitly says it is a server-wide health check versus those targeted status tools.

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 pre-flight/diagnostic check to run before generation work. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_queue_status or get_generation_status, and no mention of prerequisites or how often to call it.

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