Get Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'read-only with no side effects' adds little beyond structured data. However, the description does add real value by tying the check to a pre-flight workflow and by naming the configuration conditions (source dir, CLI availability, account configuration) that gate later operations.

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 core check, then the return shape, then the routing guidance — a sensible order with no filler. Slight redundancy in listing the five boolean field names when an output schema already exists, but it is compact enough not to be a real cost.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status probe with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, return semantics and the sibling alternative. 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly spends no space on parameter semantics.

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 names a specific check ('whether the Signal MCP server can read local messages and send outbound messages') rather than restating the name, and it enumerates the exact boolean fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pairing_status and read_messages.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('call this before read or send operations to verify configuration') and an explicit alternative with its condition ('call pairing_status instead to check first-run device-linking state'). An agent has no inference left to make about tool selection.

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