chiark-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying what data is returned (alive/dead, HTTP status, response time, TLS validity), which helps the agent understand the tool's output behavior. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return values without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic use. It clearly explains what the tool does and what it returns, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could be more comprehensive by addressing potential errors or usage constraints, slightly limiting completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (agent_id) with its type and description. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high coverage, this is acceptable. The baseline is 3, but the simplicity and completeness of the schema justify a slightly higher score.

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 action ('Check real-time status') and resource ('of an agent'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns probe results rather than finding agents, scoring agents, getting ecosystem stats, or reporting outcomes. It uses precise verbs and defines the exact scope of what it provides.

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 usage by mentioning it returns probe results, suggesting it's for monitoring agent health, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_agent or get_agent_score. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's purpose alone.

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