Get Server Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds value by stating it needs no credentials, which is behavioral context not present in the annotations. It does not specify return format, but that gap is minor given the annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the factual content (version, profile, notices) is front-loaded before the safety caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 diagnostic tool with full annotation coverage, the description names exactly what the response reports (version, profile, release notices), compensating for the absent output schema. It is essentially complete, with only the missing explicit sibling routing keeping it from a 5.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call, and there is nothing parameter-related to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and a precise set of reported resources (server version, active tool profile, point-of-use release notices). The purpose is unambiguous, but it never names or contrasts with potential sibling readers like get_setup_instructions or get_session_log, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Read-only; needs no credentials' gives some invocation context, and the diagnostic nature of 'server status' implies when it is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. the many other read/list status-type siblings, so the guidance is only implied.

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