fields_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral details: what data appears in the response (version, counts, plugin states, sync state, error condition). However, it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), whether it requires authentication, or whether it's safe to call frequently. For a status tool with no annotation coverage, the description provides moderate but incomplete behavioral context.

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 compact sentence that enumerates the returned fields in a terse, comma-separated list. It is efficiently front-loaded with the tool's subject ('cvrt-fields status') and wastes no words. The telegraphic style trades some readability for brevity, but stays clear.

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 simple diagnostic tool with one schema-documented parameter, the description covers what an agent needs to know about the output at a high level. No output schema exists, so the field enumeration is helpful, but it doesn't explain return format, pagination, or failure modes beyond mentioning a 'JSON read error' item. Adequate but with room for more detail on what each reported field means.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter ('site'), fully documented in the schema with a pointer to list_sites. The description adds no additional parameter information (no format hints, no edge cases). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific resource (cvrt-fields status) and enumerates exactly what the status report contains: plugin version, definition counts per kind, plugin active states, JSON sync state, and JSON read error. This gives an agent a clear picture of the tool's diagnostic purpose. Loses a point because it doesn't differentiate from siblings like seo_status, legal_status, or fulfillment_status, though the domain prefix 'cvrt-fields' provides implicit scoping.

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 for diagnostics (checking plugin version, active plugins, sync state) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when not to use it, and no alternatives. An agent can infer this is a status-check tool, but is left to decide independently when it's warranted over generic health checks like mcp_get_health or mcp_get_plugins_health.

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