Relay Status

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, and the description goes further by disclosing the live-probe mechanism and the degraded-mode behavior: when the Client is busy or unreachable, a stale answer is returned flagged as ``cached`` with its age. That failure-mode/fallback semantics is exactly the context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then triggers, then caveats, then the sibling pointer — a sensible order with no wasted padding. The standalone 'Read-only.' sentence slightly duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, a minor redundancy in an otherwise tight description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation. Coverage of purpose, invocation timing, degraded behavior, and the sibling alternative is complete for a no-argument status 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. No parameter guidance is missing or 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?

States a specific verb and three concrete resources it reports on: the Relay Server, the connected Client, and its MCP servers. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by contrasting configured server aliases with servers not yet configured.

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?

Gives explicit triggers: call first to confirm the Client is connected, when a tool is missing or fails, and after an administration change. It also names the alternative and the different need it serves ('To discover servers that are not configured yet, use relay_registry_search').

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