server_status

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the load well: it discloses 'No network calls' and, more importantly, explains that results may originate from stale in-memory code/rules and that the remedy is a server restart (not reinstall). That is meaningful operational context beyond any structured field, though it never explicitly states the tool is read-only/idempotent.

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 purpose and usage are well front-loaded in the first two English sentences, but the memo then runs long and switches into Korean, mixing languages and spending most of its length on output-interpretation detail. Much of that duplicates what the existing output schema should carry, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 diagnostic with an output schema, the definition is more than sufficient — arguably over-complete, since it interprets return fields the output schema already defines. The added value (how to detect and fix a stale process) is genuinely useful, so nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 per the baseline this scores 4. The description's field-by-field guidance (process_stale, commit_id, total_rules, mcp_tools) concerns return values rather than inputs, so it cannot add input semantics.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Return runtime diagnostics') and enumerates exactly what is returned ('install identity, rules dir, rule counts, env'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_loaded_rules, get_rule, and scan_path, whose names describe different resources.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'to verify the server is healthy and to see which rules are loaded,' and from any MCP client. It does not, however, name or exclude alternatives despite overlapping siblings (list_loaded_rules also reports loaded rules), so the routing guidance is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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