repl_server_status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable details about the response payload, specifying exactly what fields the JSON will contain (Python version, session count, configuration, limits), which helps the agent set expectations beyond the safety hints.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the action and target; the second lists expected return contents, making every sentence informative and front-loaded.

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?

With no parameters, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It explicitly lists the response fields, so the agent knows what to expect without needing further elaboration.

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, so the input schema provides no burden. The description appropriately omits parameter details, as there are none to explain, matching the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 'Get current server status and configuration,' specifying the verb and resource. It also enumerates the return fields (Python version, session count, configuration, limits), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on code execution or session management.

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 description provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving server-level status and configuration, which implies the appropriate use case. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the tool's purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings like list_sessions or run_code, so an agent can readily determine when to invoke it.

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