nexus_server_status

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by listing the diagnostics returned (index age, backend, caps, state dirs, version), which helps set expectations. However, it does not describe the output format, potential errors, or any required permissions, so it is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Server self-diagnostics') and then lists the key elements. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, minimal annotation needs), the description is largely complete. It states what the tool reports. However, because there is no output schema, it does not specify the exact return structure (e.g., JSON key names), but the listed fields provide a reasonable expectation.

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 zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage (empty object). With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not contradict the schema.

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 identifies the tool as 'Server self-diagnostics' and enumerates the specific data it provides: 'index age, backend, caps, state dirs, version.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from many sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'report.' It could be confused with nexus_diagnose, but the focus on server state versus general diagnostic makes it reasonably clear.

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 does not mention that it should be used for checking server health or that nexus_diagnose might be more appropriate for troubleshooting. There is no explicit when-to-use or what-not-to-use context.

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