check_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool only probes connectivity, enumerates the returned status dict keys (connected, host/port, gimp_version, error), and tells the agent what to do on failure. It does not mention timeouts or latency, so an agent can't tell whether a call may hang, but the safety profile is effectively conveyed ('check' implies a read-only probe).

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 purpose in the first sentence, then a compact bulleted return-value contract, then usage guidance. Since there is no output schema, the enumerated return fields earn their place rather than padding.

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 connectivity probe with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything missing from structured fields: what it returns, what failure looks like, and the first-step usage rule plus recovery instructions. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema coverage is 100% and empty. Baseline 4 applies.

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: 'Check whether the GIMP MCP plugin socket is reachable and responding.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings such as restart_server, pdb_run, or call_api, which operate on GIMP itself rather than on the socket connection.

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 explicit placement in the workflow ('Use this before any other operation to verify the GIMP plugin is running') plus a concrete remediation path ('open GIMP and run Tools > Start MCP Server'). It stops short of naming restart_server as the alternative when the server hangs rather than being down, which is the one remaining routing gap.

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