Inspect the durable MCP server approval snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context ('never starts the target server') but then spends most of its remaining text on sibling-tool requirements (WARDEN_ALLOW_PIN_CHANGES=1 for approve/revoke, approval prerequisites), which is not about this tool and risks confusing the agent about what status_mcp_server actually does.

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 'When to use / When NOT to use' front-loading is good structure, but the sentences about approve/revoke env-var gating and approval hash requirements do not belong to a status tool and dilute the message. Wasteful content that describes siblings rather than this tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still notes what is returned (current hashes plus previous snapshot). The input schema is fully described and the tool is a simple read, so it is largely complete; the misplaced approval-requirement text is the only clutter.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the two real parameters (server, tools) are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning for those params; instead it references 'previous_pin_revision', which is not an input of this tool, adding potential confusion rather than clarity.

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 states a concrete outcome: 'returns the current hashes and previous snapshot for comparison' and frames it as inspecting a server approval after operator review. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the scanning sibling ('ordinary scanning; use vet_mcp_server'), so an agent can separate it from vet_mcp_server. The verb 'status' is awkward but the resource (approval snapshot/hashes) is clear.

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?

It uses explicit 'When to use' / 'When NOT to use' framing, names the excluded case (ordinary scanning), and routes to the alternative tool (vet_mcp_server). That is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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