status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the type of data returned ('diagnostics, provider health, budget state'), implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose side effects, response format, or any potential caveats such as staleness or access restrictions.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resources. Every word is informative, with 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?

Given that the tool has no input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it names the categories of data returned. It is slightly light on what 'server diagnostics' entails or how budget state might be represented, but for a simple status tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 there is no ambiguity to resolve. The input schema is empty and description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter information since none exist.

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 states the tool retrieves server diagnostics, provider health, and budget state. The verb 'Get' plus the specific resources make the purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like web_search and github_search.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it or how it compares to alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend this tool over others for specific scenarios.

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