Living Stack Capability 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 covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about what the tool reports on—boundaries, risk policy, and capability classes—and its non-session scope, going beyond the 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 carry all necessary information. The main scoping statement is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key negative distinction, with no filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It specifies what the tool inspects, the categories of information returned, and what it explicitly does not do. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') tied to a clear resource ('standalone Living Stack MCP server') and enumerates the exact aspects covered: enforced boundaries, configured risk policy, and available capability classes. The explicit negative statement 'This does not inspect a customer session' sets it apart from session-oriented siblings.

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 a clear usage context: use it for server-level introspection, not for session inspection. It provides an explicit exclusion ('does not inspect a customer session') but does not name the alternative sibling tool, such as livingstack.session_status.

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