get_server_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return payload (running/queued/processed job counts) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get,' but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, latency, or whether the call fails when the server is down. Useful but not rich.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second front-loads when to reach for it. No filler, no repetition 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 simple, parameterless-in-practice status read with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials by naming the returned job counts and the motivating use case. It stops short of describing failure/down behavior, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single server_type parameter is fully documented in the schema with an enum and default, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('Get the current status of the antiSMASH server') and enumerates the returned metrics (running, queued, total jobs), which makes the tool's scope concrete. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling like check_job_status or get_job_details, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: 'Useful to check if the server is available before submitting new jobs,' which tells the agent the pre-flight scenario that selects this tool. It provides no explicit exclusions or alternative-selection rules, so it lands at clear-context-without-exclusions.

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