ControlCenter Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the scope of the overview (local MCP stack, servers, profiles), which provides some context beyond annotations, but it does not describe the output format or whether the status is aggregated in a particular way.

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 is concise and free of any waste. It directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema) and the description covers the main content areas (local MCP stack, local servers, Claude profiles). While a bit more detail about the output would improve completeness, the description is sufficient for a status-overview tool given the annotations and simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the baseline, 0 parameters warrants a 4 since there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The description correctly does not invent any parameters.

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 shows an overview of the local MCP stack, local servers, and Claude profiles, using the specific verb 'zeigt einen Überblick' (shows an overview). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list individual components (e.g., controlcenter_list_stacks, controlcenter_list_local_servers) by emphasizing the aggregated status view.

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 getting a high-level overview but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific list/describe sibling tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, only the general purpose.

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