Signiertes ControlCenter-Laufzeit-Receipt erzeugen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: the native check via list_tools, the short-lived Ed25519 signature, and the safe-abort behavior when configuration is missing. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentences in German; the first front-loads the verb, resource, and key characteristics, while the second adds the prerequisite. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 tool without an output schema, the description conveys the purpose, output type, signature, short lifetime, and failure mode. It does not detail the exact return structure, but that is minor given the simple contract and the read-only annotations.

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 is no parameter documentation gap. The description adds useful context about an external configuration requirement that affects whether the call succeeds.

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 precise verb and resource: it checks the ControlCenter server read-only via list_tools and produces an Ed25519-signed short-lived Actual-Self-Receipt. This distinguishes it from sibling inspection tools like list_tools or describe_mcp because the focus is on generating a signed receipt.

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 gives a clear precondition (explicit host-local configuration required, otherwise safe abort) and notes the read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or name a sibling that should be used instead, so usage context is only implied.

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