check_runtime_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context that the tool is 'DB-free', meaning it does not rely on a database connection, and mentions contract fingerprints, which imply a stable and predictable output structure. This goes beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and lists the three output categories. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-argument status tool with a strong annotation set and an output schema (indicated by has_output_schema=true), the description provides all necessary context: what is returned and that it is server-process-scoped. No additional details are needed.

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 schema description covers 100% trivially. There is no parameter complexity to explain. The baseline of 4 applies here as the description correctly focuses on the return payload rather than parameters.

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 returns specific items: runtime identity, registered-tool capabilities, and contract fingerprints. The verb 'Return' is specific, and the scope 'for this MCP server process' distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_capabilities, which likely only covers capabilities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_capabilities or other status-related tools. The description implies general runtime status checking but does not state explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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