mbs_status

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

No annotations are present, and the description is minimal. It does not explain how the reachability check is performed, what 'metadata' refers to, or any failure/error behavior. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No extraneous words are used.

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?

The description covers the basic action and a broad output ('metadata'), but it lacks specifics about the return format or potential failure modes. Given the simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), a somewhat more detailed description would be expected to fully inform the agent.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify regarding inputs. The description correctly avoids mentioning parameters, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 the tool's function: checking reachability of the MBS site and returning metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search, list, or retrieve content. The verb 'check' is specific and the resource is named.

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?

No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are provided. The purpose implies it should be used when determining if the site is accessible, but there is no comparative context with sibling tools.

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