mt4_status

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: concurrent queries, specific metrics shown (systemd state, broker connection, log age), and interpretation of healthy state. Since no annotations exist, description carries full burden and suffices. Minor gap: no mention of potential side effects or auth requirements, but none expected for a read-only health check.

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 efficient: two short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value (health metrics, concurrency, interpretation). No fluff.

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 health check tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (assumed documented), the description covers input behavior, concurrency, metrics, and output interpretation. No missing details for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description explains the 'terminal' parameter as 'a terminal id, or "all" (default)', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default. It is concise but sufficient.

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 the tool reports health of one terminal or all terminals, using a specific verb ('report health') and resource ('terminal'). It distinguishes from siblings like mt4_doctor or mt4_info by focusing on health metrics (systemd state, broker connection, log age).

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 implies usage for health checking but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs. alternatives like mt4_doctor or mt4_info. It provides no exclusions or scenarios where other tools would be preferred.

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