get_runtime_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation that returns state information with no mention of destructive side effects. It could be improved by noting any authentication requirements or cost, but it is sufficiently transparent for a non-mutating tool.

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 what the tool returns, the second gives usage guidance and a sibling reference. It is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no wasted words.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, what it returns, and when to use it. It references a sibling tool for contrast, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool returns 'server's current runtime state' and lists specific categories like policy flags, sync schedule, IMAP state, draft stats, and index freshness. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'get_connection_status' by indicating that tool is for protocol reachability only.

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 says to use this tool 'to understand how the server is configured and whether sync is actively running' and explicitly recommends 'get_connection_status' for protocol reachability only, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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