bw_system_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses an important behavioral trait: 'No network call.' It also clarifies that it reports whether a live BW session exists and the workdir for file buffering, which helps an agent understand what to expect beyond a bare status label.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then lists the returned information, and closes with the primary use case. No redundant filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, read-only status tool, the description covers the main things an agent needs: what the tool reports, that it makes no network call, and when to use it. It does not describe error conditions or how to interpret the 'live BW session' flag, but these are minor for this simple status operation.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by detailing what the output will contain (profile fields, session status, configured profiles, workdir), which is more useful than schema information alone for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb ('Report') with a clear resource ('MCP server status') and enumerates the exact contents: environment profile fields, live session status, configured profiles, and workdir. It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling bw_system_info.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this first to confirm the server is wired to the right BW system.' This clearly states when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, especially relative to bw_system_info.

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