everything_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'No changes to the service.' It also adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what is checked: ES version and Everything IPC connectivity. No contradiction exists.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the safety behavior without any filler. Every word 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, read-only status check, the description is complete: it states what is checked, that no changes are made, and its scope is clear relative to the sibling tools. No output schema exists, but the expected result is sufficiently implied by 'Check ES version and Everything IPC connectivity.'

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter meanings for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this receives a strong score.

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 verb ('Check') and precise resources ('ES version and Everything IPC connectivity'), and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling search/list tools. An agent can immediately understand this is a health/status tool, not a data-retrieval tool.

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 this is for verifying service health and connectivity before or instead of searching, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The safety note 'No changes to the service' is useful but does not provide direct routing guidance.

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