server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe, local, non-mutating character is established structurally, and the description is consistent with that. It adds that the tool surfaces load, active sounds, and recent errors, which is real context beyond the annotations, but with an output schema present the return contents are partly redundant and there is no discussion of failure behavior when the connection is down.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by what the caller gets back. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema covering returns, and annotations covering safety, the description covers what an agent needs in order to select and call it. The only mild gap is what the tool reports when the SuperCollider connection is unavailable, which matters for a connectivity check.

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 no parameter semantics burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, single-shot status query.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') tied to a concrete resource ('the connection to SuperCollider') and enumerates what is reported: load, playing sounds, and recent errors. That makes it clearly distinguishable from the sound-creation siblings (play_synth, create_sequence, etc.), though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the diagnostic call to make when verifying connectivity or inspecting current server state. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. whether SuperCollider must already be running).

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