get_runtime_status

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

The description enumerates the specific runtime state fields returned, adding behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It discloses that the tool is a read operation returning configuration and sync status, with no destructive effects.

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 two sentences: the first lists the returned information, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence is essential and there is no 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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the categories of state returned, providing enough context for an agent to understand the output. No additional detail is needed for this simple zero-parameter tool.

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 no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. In this case a baseline of 4 is appropriate; no param info is needed.

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 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource 'server's current runtime state'. It enumerates the types of state information included, and distinguishes from the sibling tool get_connection_status.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('understand how the server is configured and whether sync is actively running') and when to prefer an alternative ('Prefer get_connection_status for protocol reachability only'), providing clear decision guidance.

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