jazz_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not contradict that. The description adds specific behavioral context by listing exactly what status aspects are checked (server, schema, auth mode, write safety). This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the tool's focus, though it does not elaborate on potential response details.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Check') and then lists the key elements. It contains zero filler and is clearly structured for quick parsing.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete enough. It clearly indicates what the tool checks, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invocation. No return format is explicitly documented, but the listed items imply the expected status information.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately avoids mentioning parameters since there are none. No additional parameter semantics are 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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and enumerates distinct items (server, schema, auth mode, write safety settings), making it clear this is a status/configuration inspection tool. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like jazz_query or jazz_insert by focusing on configuration rather than data operations.

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 implies usage for verifying the current server state, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion or alternative tool is mentioned, though the nature of the tool and sibling names make the context reasonably clear. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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