get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only with no side effects' is largely redundant. However, the description adds real context by enumerating the capability checks performed (source dir, CLI availability, account configured, read/send availability), which tells the agent what a successful verification actually confirms.

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, then usage routing, then return fields — a sensible order. It is slightly padded: the return-field list duplicates the output schema and 'Read-only with no side effects' duplicates the annotations.

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?

With zero params, rich annotations, and an output schema documenting the boolean return values, the description covers purpose, usage routing, and safety profile. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed since the input schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false.

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+resource: checking whether the Signal MCP server can read local messages and send outbound messages. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (pairing_status), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 when-to-use ('Call this before read or send operations to verify configuration') and a when-to-use-the-alternative rule ('call pairing_status instead to check first-run device-linking state'). Nothing is left to inference.

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