Inspect server health and runtime limits

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is free. The description earns credit for adding what annotations cannot: the required scope 'aegis:read' and the assurance that the endpoint exposes no secrets or principals, which an agent needs before deciding this is safe to surface. It does not discuss rate limits or latency, so it is short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, payload enumerated first, constraints after — well front-loaded. 'Read-only.' is redundant with readOnlyHint=true, but the repetition costs little and the rest of the text is dense with non-duplicated information.

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?

A parameterless read-only status tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage needs little more than this: what it returns, that it is safe, and what scope it needs. All three are present, so an agent could call it correctly on the first attempt.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is genuinely nothing schema-side left to explain. The description correctly adds only scope and sensitivity framing rather than inventing parameter talk.

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 ('Return') and resource ('runtime status') and then enumerates the exact payload: version, transport, offline mode, cache size, circuit-breaker states, readiness. That enumeration makes it unmistakable against the sibling tools (lookup_cve, triage_incident, scan_packages), which all concern vulnerabilities and incidents rather than server state.

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 one concrete decision rule: 'Use to decide whether retries are appropriate.' That is a real when-to-use signal, not an implied one. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing to an alternative, but the siblings occupy a different problem space so there is little ambiguity to resolve.

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