server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds that output includes fix instructions for misconfigured modes. It also frames the tool as a connectivity check, which is useful behavioral context beyond the flags.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by actionable usage guidance. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation fields.

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?

With a parameterless schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description covers why, when, and what to expect. An agent can invoke it correctly with no further information.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no semantic burden beyond the baseline. No parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') against a concrete resource ('Zotero MCP operating modes') and states it also returns fix instructions for misconfigured modes. This sets it apart from the collection/item/search siblings by focusing on server-level diagnostics.

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 tells the agent to call this tool first when tools return 'unavailable' errors or when starting a new session to verify connectivity. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, but the trigger conditions are strong enough for routing.

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