server_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavioral traits. The word 'report' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the explicit listing of what is reported (running, healthy, transform count) gives the agent concrete behavioral expectations. It does not discuss side effects, auth, or errors, but for a simple status query this level is reasonably complete.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and immediately specifies the three outputs of interest. Every word contributes meaning; there is no 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?

For a zero-parameter, status-reporting tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It names all the reported aspects (running, health, transform count) without needing to explain return values, as those are covered by the output schema. The simplicity of the operation does not require further elaboration.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed since there is nothing to configure. It correctly focuses on the output dimensions 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 the specific verb 'report' paired with the resource 'server' and clearly enumerates the exact outputs (running, healthy, transform count). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like server_start, server_stop, and server_logs, which are also self-descriptive in their names.

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 as a health/status check before or during server operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, though the context of sibling tool names provides implicit differentiation.

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