get_schema_viewer_status

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 states the core behavior (returns running status and URL) but does not disclose edge-case behavior such as what is returned when the server is not running (null URL, error, or false flag). The 'running' semantics are also undefined.

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 13-word sentence with zero waste. The key verb and resource are front-loaded, and everything stated 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema status check, the description covers the essential contract: what is returned. It could optionally describe the return shape (e.g., boolean + URL field) or suggest using it before display_schema, but nothing critical is missing for such a simple tool.

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 zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. With an empty schema, there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments, making this dimension inherently satisfied.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource (schema viewer server status) and names the output (running state + URL). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'display_schema' — the distinction is implied by subject matter rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to call this tool versus 'display_schema' or any other alternative. An agent must infer that a status check likely precedes schema display. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or workflow hints.

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