Read LLMxRay status

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: it takes no arguments, nothing can be changed through MCP (settings live on the Live page), LLMxRay must be running via npx llmxray, and it responds in under a second. It stops short of describing failure behavior when the server is unreachable, so not a full 5.

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?

Three short blocks, front-loaded with what is returned, then routing guidance, then operational constraints. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so by enumerating each field reported. Runtime prerequisite (LLMxRay running), latency, and immutability are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The note 'Takes no arguments' correctly sets expectations that no 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('where LLMxRay runs and what it holds') and enumerates the exact fields returned: observe port/listening state, upstream Ollama and version, retained turns, on-disk text retention, start time. It explicitly contrasts itself with siblings: 'Those tools read the turns; this one reads the server itself.'

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('Use it first when diagnose_my_turns or read_my_last_turn answers that nothing was seen') and a second use case ('confirm which Ollama your calls reach'), naming the sibling tools by name. No ambiguity about when to reach for this instead of the turn-reading tools.

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