argus_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds 'no LLM call', 'no side effects', 'Auth/limits: none beyond MCP session', and details return fields. Consistent with annotations, adds useful context beyond them.

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?

Description is brief, front-loaded with purpose, uses clear section breaks (When to use, Auth, Returns, Example), and every sentence adds 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?

Given low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema, high annotation coverage), description covers purpose, usage, behavior, auth, return fields, and example. Fully sufficient for agent invocation.

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 100% with full description of detail parameter. Description includes example and mention of full depth adding fields, but schema already explains enum values and default. Minimal added value beyond schema.

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 explicit verb 'Return ARGUS-3 MCP runtime status as JSON text', names specific resource 'ARGUS-3 MCP runtime', and distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with argus_ask and argus_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?

Explicitly states when to use ('before heavy argus_ask calls, or to confirm version/channel/tools') and when not to use ('to run a task' or 'list WARDEN policy detail'), naming alternatives (argus_ask, argus_capabilities).

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