tessera_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by using 'show,' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or response format. The description adds value by listing what health metrics are included, but lacks details on execution constraints.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and includes a usage guideline in the second, with zero wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete enough for its purpose. It covers what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral context, which is mitigated by the output schema handling return values.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but this is acceptable given the absence of inputs, warranting a baseline score above minimum viable.

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 specific verb ('show') and resource ('Tessera server health'), listing concrete components like tracked files, sync history, index size, cache stats, and watcher status. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on server-level diagnostics rather than memory, search, or project operations.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when asked about server status or troubleshooting.' This provides clear context for invocation, distinguishing it from other health-related tools like 'health_check' or 'memory_health' by specifying server-level focus.

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