server_status

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, detailing dry-run mode, OAuth scopes, destructive removal toggles, database build state, and cache stats. This gives an agent a realistic picture of what the read-only call exposes and what conditions may affect results, such as 'if built.'

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?

One well-organized sentence with a colon-delimited list packs a large amount of specific information without fluff. Every item in the list names a distinct piece of state an agent would want to check.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema present, the description is fully adequate. It enumerates all major status categories and provides conditional context about the listening-history database.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the empty schema already covers all argument semantics. The description appropriately does not invent param documentation and instead clarifies what the no-arg call returns.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Report,' and a specific resource, 'this server's own state,' then enumerates the exact kinds of state it covers. This sharply distinguishes server_status from all sibling tools, which target Spotify data and user listening history.

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 makes clear this is the diagnostic tool for server-level configuration and operational state. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but none of the siblings overlap with server status, so the context is unambiguous.

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