linka-status

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

No annotations are present; the description only states it returns a snapshot. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, performance implications, or what the snapshot contains.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, though could include slight more context.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not elaborate on the return value beyond 'runtime snapshot'. Given many sibling tools, more detail about the snapshot's content would be helpful.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics but is clear that no input is needed, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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 it returns a runtime snapshot for the current MCP process. The verb 'Return' and resource 'runtime snapshot' are specific, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling status tools like linka-bridge-status or linka-teach-status.

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 offers no context about preferred scenarios or exclusions.

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