system

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

The description directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation. While the annotation claims read-only behavior, the description includes 'init' (re-initialize) and 'execute_lisp' (execute arbitrary code), which are mutating operations. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent into assuming safe read-only behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear summary and a bulleted list of operations. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, though the list format could be more compact by grouping similar operations.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description omits critical behavioral context like which operations are mutating, parameter details for 'data' and 'include_screenshot', and clarifications around 'File IPC only'. The read-only contradiction and missing parameter semantics make it incomplete for a multi-operation tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description is expected to compensate by explaining params. It implicitly describes the 'operation' parameter via the list of operations and explains 'data' for execute_lisp, but 'include_screenshot' is never described. The 'data' parameter is only contextualized for one operation, leaving ambiguity for others.

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 identifies the tool as server status and management, with a list of operations that specify exactly what it does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (layer, drawing, etc.) by focusing on backend operations, though the broad 'management' term could be more specific.

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 operation list implies when to use the tool (e.g., for health checks, backend info), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving usage intent somewhat implicit.

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