mcp_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'compact' attribute and the exact fields returned, which provides some context about output scope. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications, whether all fields are always present, or any side effects—though for a read-only status tool, this is minimal concern.

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, compact sentence that immediately lists the key status fields. Every word earns its place—'compact' signals the tool's lightweight nature, and the field list is directly informative. No waste, no 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?

For a simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives a good overview of the expected content (scene, dirty, play/compile state, port, alias count). It does not describe the exact response format or data types, but given the tool's simplicity and the read-only annotation, this is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of usage context relative to siblings, which is captured in usage_guidelines.

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 the schema is trivially 100% covered. Baseline for 0 params is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to, which is appropriate. It adds meaning by describing what the returned status contains, which is useful for interpreting the output.

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 indicates the tool provides a compact MCP status, listing specific fields (scene, dirty, play/compile state, port, alias count). While the tool name 'mcp_status' is a noun phrase, the description is specific enough to convey what it does. It distinguishes from siblings like alias_status by including more comprehensive status fields, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like alias_status, get_compile_errors, and scene, the description offers no context on when mcp_status is the appropriate choice. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and field list.

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