server_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states it returns metadata but does not specify what runtime metadata includes or any side effects. The existence of an output schema compensates somewhat, but more details on behavior (e.g., read-only, latency) would be beneficial.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose and usage context.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple status endpoint. The context of sibling tools reinforces its distinct role. Slightly more detail about the metadata could be added, but it's adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). According to guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. No additional parameter semantics 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 clearly states the tool returns 'basic runtime metadata' for specific use cases 'smoke tests and client wiring'. The verb 'Return' is specific, and the resource ('runtime metadata') is distinct from sibling tools that deal with data queries.

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 explicitly mentions when to use: for smoke tests and client wiring. While it does not list when not to use or alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes its usage obvious. A clearer exclusion statement would improve, but it is adequate.

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