stealth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Show' clearly indicates a read-only, informational behavior, and it discloses what aspects are covered (Chrome profile, proxy, etc.). It does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or describe the output format, but for a status tool this is sufficient and adds substantial context beyond the schema.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Show how this MCP is wired') and efficiently lists the components using a colon. Every word earns its place; there is zero verbosity.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool does and what areas it covers. It lacks an explicit description of the return format, but for a status tool this is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool with confidence.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. It correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource ('how this MCP is wired'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like stealth_check or stealth_audit by focusing on configuration rather than stealth verification. It enumerates the exact components covered (Playwright surface, Patchright runtime, Chrome profile, proxy, CDP/extension attach), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 description makes it clear through context that this tool is for inspecting the MCP's wiring/configuration, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like stealth_check or stealth_audit, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool guidance. This is still 'clear context' but not fully explicit.

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