get_livemcp_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does add 'when reachable' (indicating conditional behavior) and 'actionable warnings', which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes network calls, or how it handles errors—typical expectations for a status tool. Thus it is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise list of return elements. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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, parameterless status tool, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return data. The mention of 'actionable warnings' and 'when reachable' provides sufficient context for expected behavior. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns, which helps the agent understand the output context. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('local install state and remote-script capability status'). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by listing exact return fields (package version, client transport version, local install status, remote-script capability info, actionable warnings), making its scope unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_livemcp_info' or 'get_application_info'. It does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios. Users must infer usage from the name and general status-checking context, which is insufficient per the rubric.

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