server_status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses that it returns runtime diagnostics without network calls, indicating a safe, read-only operation. There is no mention of destructive effects, which is appropriate for a diagnostic tool.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the return values and the use case for health verification, making it complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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?

With no parameters, schema coverage is 100% automatically. The description adds value by detailing the output (package version, rules dir, rule counts, env), which helps the agent understand what to expect, compensating for the lack of param-related information.

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 explicitly states 'Return runtime diagnostics' and lists specific items (package version, rules dir, rule counts, env), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like scan_code or list_loaded_rules which focus on different operations. The verb 'verify' further clarifies its diagnostic role.

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 advises using the tool from any MCP client to verify server health and see loaded rules, and notes 'No network calls', which implies it's safe and fast. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools are distinct enough.

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