status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return value structure (dictionary with status, system metrics, service information), implying a read-only check, but it does not address potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it makes external network calls. The return description adds some value but lacks depth on side effects and operational behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Check the status'), and followed by a brief return-value summary. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 status tool with an output schema, the description adequately states purpose and return type. The return format (dictionary with status, system metrics, service information) gives sufficient context, and the presence of an output schema covers the specific fields. No additional complexity requires further explanation.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters; the description correctly omits parameter details since none exist. It does not need to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Check' and resource 'status of the CourtListener MCP server,' clearly distinguishing this health-check tool from the many data retrieval and search sibling tools. It is immediately obvious what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 is clear: this is for checking server status. While it doesn't explicitly say when to use vs alternatives, there are no sibling tools with similar functionality, so the usage is unambiguous. It effectively implies that it should be used when server health or availability information is needed.

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