Get log-probe ingestion server status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It transparently states that the tool reports whether the server is running, its URL, and counters, which implies a non-mutating read operation. It doesn't detail edge cases or error behavior, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 a single sentence that is clear, informative, and front-loaded with the action ('Reports'). Every element adds value: the subject, the action, and the three types of information returned.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool returns. The only minor gap is that 'basic counters' is vague, but the overall behavior is clear for a simple status-checking tool.

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 baseline is 4. The schema is empty and description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly focuses on the tool's outputs instead.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Reports') and resource ('ingestion server'), and lists the exact outputs (running status, URL, basic counters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools probe_server_start and probe_server_stop, which perform mutating actions.

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 implies the tool is for checking status when you need to know if the ingestion server is running. It does not explicitly state when to use it instead of start/stop, but the context is clear given the sibling names and the report-oriented wording.

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