Show Status

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing what the call returns (the tool inventory grouped by category plus authentication status), which is essential since no output schema exists. It does not mention that no arguments are taken, but that is visible in the schema.

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, no filler: the first defines the operation and its output, the second gives the call-ordering advice. The most actionable instruction ("Call it first") is placed where it will be read.

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 zero-argument, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, an agent needs to know what comes back and when to reach for it — both are stated. There are no parameters, no mutation risk, and no return format left implicit that would change how the tool is invoked.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. The baseline for a parameterless tool is a 4, and nothing here lowers it.

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?

"List every tool this server offers, grouped by category, with the current authentication status" gives a concrete verb (list) and a precise resource (the server's tool inventory + auth state). This is unmistakably the meta/discovery tool among siblings like wsp_list_websites_gsc or wsp_show_sitemaps_gsc, which return Search Console data rather than tool metadata.

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?

"Call it first to learn what is available or to diagnose login problems" states both a call ordering and two triggering conditions, which is strong guidance for a discovery tool. It stops short of naming the natural alternative for auth repair (wsp_login_again_gsc), so an agent must infer which of the two to use when a login is actually broken.

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