Asterisk status

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by listing the specific status fields and the reachability use case, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the read-only nature, and no negative side effects are mentioned, which is consistent with a status read.

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, front-loaded with the return content, and the second sentence provides actionable guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 params, no output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to use it, and its role among sibling tools. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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 does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema is fully covered. There is no missing parameter information.

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 specifies the resource ('Core status of the Asterisk server') and the exact fields returned ('version, uptime, active calls and calls processed'), making it clear this is a server-level status tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings like asterisk_channels and asterisk_endpoints by focusing on core server health rather than specific subsystems.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this first to confirm the PBX is reachable before running other Asterisk tools.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the implication is clear.

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