tool_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose that the operation is non-executing (i.e., side-effect free) on the target tool, which is the one real behavioral signal. But it says nothing about whether the lookup itself changes state, what happens when the tool is not installed, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately qualified by the non-execution constraint. There is no waste, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. But for a zero-parameter tool whose entire job is locating a specific installed tool, the description omits how the target is determined (name, ambient context, server state), which is the central ambiguity an agent would face. Relative to that complexity gap, the definition is thin.

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 input schema defines zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. The only residual question is how the target tool is specified given no parameters, which the description does not address, but the schema itself is complete.

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 states a specific action ("find an installed tool") plus a key negative constraint ("without executing it"), which is informative. However, it never says what the tool operates on or how a tool is identified, and it offers no differentiation from siblings like server_info or parse_diagnostics. Purpose is recognizable but under-specified against its own name.

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?

"Without executing it" implies a safe inspection scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to the sibling tools as alternatives. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.

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