misp_instance_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond by detailing the return structure (JSON with reachable, misp_version, server_version) and error handling (returns an error string explaining what to fix), which is valuable context not in the annotations.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: first states the primary purpose and usage context, second details the return format. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, return format, and error scenarios, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 description naturally has no parameter details. With 100% schema coverage (no params), a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no additional param meaning 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 clearly specifies that the tool checks MISP reachability, validates the configured API key, and reports versions. It explicitly labels itself as a 'connectivity/auth smoke test,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like misp_lookup_ioc or misp_submit_ioc.

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 states 'to run first when other tools fail,' providing explicit usage guidance. It implies this is the initial diagnostic tool, and its simple scope teaches an agent when not to use it (e.g., for specific data operations handled by siblings).

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