get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly signals this is a read-only operation with no side effects, which is appropriate behavioral transparency. However, it doesn't describe what the status output contains (e.g., running/stopped states, health details) or whether it can fail if server is not running.

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 with zero wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded, stating the purpose immediately. It is minimal but complete for its scope, though it could add a sentence about what status values are returned.

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, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, there's a gap: it doesn't describe what 'status' means or what the return value contains. Given a complex ecosystem of sibling dev-server tools, a bit more context about what statuses are possible would help the agent interpret the result. Still, the simplicity of the tool warrants a moderate score.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and there's nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The description correctly makes no parameter claims, as there are none to document.

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 'Get current status of the dev server' uses a clear verb+resource combination, telling the agent this tool reads the dev server's status. It distinguishes from siblings like start/stop_dev_server (which are mutations) and get_errors/get_logs (which are different resources), though it doesn't explicitly name the differentiation.

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 context implies this is the read-only status check tool among siblings like start_dev_server, stop_dev_server, get_errors, and get_logs. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., get_logs for diagnostic output versus get_status for health state). The usage context is implied by the sibling set but not articulated.

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