get_server_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It uses 'query' implying read-only behavior and lists the returned information, but does not explicitly disclose side effects, permissions, or rate limits. No contradiction.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists the queried attributes. No wasted words.

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 simple no-parameter status tool, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (model configuration, current model, limits). It lacks mention of return format or when to use, but given the simplicity and sibling context, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per rubric, baseline is 4. Description contributes no parameter details because none exist.

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 states the tool queries service status, enumerating specific details (cloud model configuration, current model, limits/processing parameters). This is a distinct purpose from sibling analysis tools.

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 implies the tool is for checking system status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. Siblings are clearly analysis tools, making context implicit.

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