get_mcp_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns specific data types but does not explain the format, potential side effects, or any constraints beyond cookie exposure. The description is too brief to fully inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 immediately states the action and key details. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, front-loading the core functionality.

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's low complexity (no parameters, simple return of settings) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does and what it avoids, without needing to elaborate on return values since the output schema handles that.

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 is empty, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying what the tool returns, providing context beyond the schema. Although the baseline for high coverage is 3, the description effectively communicates the tool's purpose and output, warranting a 4.

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 returns 'local output and authentication settings' and explicitly notes what it does not expose ('cookie values'). It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource, effectively distinguishing its purpose from the sibling tool 'download_replay' which likely focuses on replay actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit usage context, prerequisites, or scenarios. The mention of not exposing cookie values hints at a privacy consideration but does not direct the agent on appropriate use cases.

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