get_server_status

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still earns credit for stating that no contact or authentication to Camunda occurs, which is exactly the kind of auth/scope context that matters beyond the hints.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the scope caveat follows immediately. Nothing here needs trimming.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what "capabilities" contains, and it says nothing about the shape of the response. For an otherwise simple zero-parameter read tool this gap is moderate rather than fatal.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No schema semantics are missing or contradicted.

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 gives a verb ("Report") and a resource ("this development server's capabilities"), but "capabilities" is vague and drifts from the tool name's "status". It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_hub_info, which presumably also reports server information.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a local introspection call. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of when get_hub_info or read_file would be preferred.

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