mesh_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile; 'inspect' reasonably implies a read-only, side-effect-free call, and 'real-time' is a useful disclosure about freshness. It does not state whether calling it consumes tokens, requires an active connection, or what happens if no servers are connected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated list of what is returned; no filler, no restatement 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?

For a zero-parameter, zero-annotation read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is returned. It is only slightly short of complete because it omits read-only confirmation and any failure/empty-state behavior.

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 the baseline is 4; the description correctly presents it as a no-argument call and spends its words on the returned data instead of inventing parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (real-time gateway statistics) and enumerates the three things returned: connected downstream servers, indexed tools, and token savings. That is far more specific than the siblings' search/describe/invoke surface, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus mesh_search_tools or mesh_describe_tool, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., call before or after connecting servers). Usage is only implied by the word 'inspect'.

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