Get status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's contributions beyond that ('Read-only. Returns JSON for the chosen scope') largely restate the annotations and the output schema rather than adding new behavioral context such as latency, cost, or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the aggregate purpose followed immediately by scope routing, and every clause carries information. Slightly dense in a single block, and the trailing 'Returns JSON' sentence is largely redundant given the output schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary; annotations cover safety; and the description fully covers the one parameter's semantics and the tool's scope. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without opening additional definitions.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by explaining what each enum-like scope value actually surfaces in operational terms (process vs. Studio app/database vs. MLX/Llama.cpp/Vibe/Nexus ports), where the schema only lists the bare option names.

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 ('Report') and enumerates the three resource domains it covers: MCP server status, Studio install health, and local service ports. An agent can distinguish it from narrow siblings like get_msty_installation or get_vibe_proxy_status because the description shows this tool aggregates all of them, though it never names those siblings to route against.

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 maps each scope value to a use case ('use scope=server for this MCP process, scope=install for the Studio app and database, scope=services for Local AI/MLX/Llama.cpp/Vibe/Nexus ports'), which is actionable routing guidance. It falls short of 5 because it gives no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit handoff to the single-purpose siblings that cover overlapping ground.

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