server_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing that the tool samples the newest log's size twice pulse_seconds apart and reports recency of the last log change, adding meaningful behavior beyond a simple 'is it alive' check. It doesn't claim any side effects, and 'health read' implies a read-only operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear summary in the first sentence. The following sentences add useful rationale and behavioral detail about why two samples are taken. The brief historical note about a post-compile hang is slightly extra, but it supports the tool's purpose without bloating the definition.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool, and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers the tool's purpose, input parameter, and core behavior, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain pulse_seconds. It does so by stating the tool samples the log's size twice 'pulse_seconds apart,' which defines the parameter as the sampling interval. However, it doesn't elaborate on units, acceptable ranges, or the effect of choosing a larger or smaller value beyond the obvious.

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 tool performs a health read: checking if the server process is alive and if its log is actually growing. This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like project_status, bridge_status, and client_status, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 when to use it: as a quick health read, especially when a hung boot and a slow boot look similar from the outside. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer in other scenarios.

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