Chainsaw: server status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that (it discloses that the binary may or may not be installed, and that evidence roots/rule sets are discoverable), but says nothing about response shape or failure modes when the binary is missing.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states what is reported, the second states when to call it. Nothing is repeated and the most decision-relevant instruction ('call this first') is front-loaded in sentence two.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does list the returned contents (configuration, version, rule counts, evidence roots). A little more detail on the return structure or binary-not-installed behavior would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and nothing is misdescribed.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Report server configuration, chainsaw version, rule counts and evidence roots') and enumerates the concrete payload. It implicitly differentiates itself from analysis/hunt siblings by being the configuration-inspection entry point, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 clear actionable guidance: 'Call this first to learn which evidence roots and rule sets are available, and whether the chainsaw binary is installed.' That establishes the invocation context and prerequisites without naming alternative tools or exclusions.

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