server_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it checks status but does not confirm read-only nature, authentication needs, or any side effects. The return value is ambiguously described as 'Status server'.

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 very short with two sentences. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, the second line ('Returns: Status server') is somewhat redundant and could be integrated or expanded.

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?

Given no parameters but an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values extensively. However, it fails to provide any behavioral context (e.g., what the status indicates) or usage context alongside sibling tools, making it minimally 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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no additional param context is required.

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 states 'Cek status server' which clearly indicates the tool checks server status. However, it is vague about what exactly 'Status server' entails, and it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'tanya_pdp' beyond implied resource difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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