get_server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, indicating a safe read operation with potentially dynamic results. The description adds value by specifying what behaviors to expect: checking connectivity, write tier, hidden tools, and default account. This enriches the transparency beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key diagnostic details, followed by a clear call to action. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input side well but leaves the output format vague. It doesn't describe what the agent will receive (e.g., status codes, JSON structure, error messages). For a diagnostic tool, this is a notable gap, though the low complexity tempers the impact.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, so the score is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool diagnoses server status, listing specific elements (connectivity, write tier, hidden tools, default account). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaigns, which retrieve specific entities. The phrase 'Start here when something is not working' further clarifies its role as a troubleshooting entry point.

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 provides clear guidance: use this tool when something is not working, positioning it as the first step in troubleshooting. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context of siblings being data-retrieval tools makes the usage scenario unambiguous. A slight deduction for lack of explicit exclusions.

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