server_status

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

Description describes a read-only status report, but annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, contradicting the implied behavior. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines transparency.

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?

Description is well-structured with 'When to use' and 'Response' sections. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Efficiently conveys all necessary information about usage and output.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and response format. It is self-contained and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and returns.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter-level detail but provides useful context about the response and return structure, which aligns with standard practice for zero-parameter tools.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reports runtime status of LogMCP server, including MCP layer responsiveness, tool count, and extension accessibility. It uses specific verb 'report' and distinguishes from siblings like check_environment by positioning as a first connectivity check.

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?

Explicitly says to use as first step for MCP connectivity issues and to use before deeper checks. Provides clear context for when to apply the tool and how it fits into a diagnostic workflow.

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