status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals what the counters cover (requests, cache, blocks), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, cost, or freshness of the metrics. An output schema exists, so return structure need not be repeated.

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 short lines with the resource named first and the usage cue second — front-loaded and free of filler. The phrasing 'не гадая' is slightly informal but costs little.

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 no-arg monitoring tool with a full output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the counters measure and when to call it. Only the absence of any contrast with the ping sibling leaves a minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning to add beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 names the concrete resource — server working counters (requests, cache, blocks) — so an agent knows it returns diagnostics rather than performing a fetch. It is clearly separable from siblings like ping and fetch_page, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 'КОГДА' line ('when you want to see how the server is doing, without guessing') implies a diagnostic/monitoring use case, which is reasonable context. However it names no alternative and gives no when-not condition (e.g. vs ping), leaving usage to inference.

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