status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists output fields but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor does it mention permissions or side effects. The description focuses on content, not behavior.

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 description is a single sentence that packs in all relevant information without any redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core 'engine status' and then lists the server view items efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. There is nothing an agent needs to call it correctly that 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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is automatically fully covered. The description adds context about what the status includes, and with no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states what the tool exposes: engine status (trust, daemon liveness, event count, allowlist) plus server view details. It names the specific resource and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like events and apps, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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?

The usage context is implied by the tool name and description: it is a status/health check. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings, no exclusions, and no alternative suggestions.

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