get_mcp_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the 'live' nature of the response and its role in verifying a rebuilt server load, but it does not disclose output format or potential variability. This is modest added value on top of strong annotations, matching a 3.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's output scope and the second sentence provides the operational use case. It is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 status tool with thorough annotations, the description covers the essential information: what will be reported and why to use it. It does not describe the response format, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a missing requirement.

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, so parameter semantics are not a concern; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters and does not introduce any confusion about how to call the 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 the specific verb 'Report' and names the exact resource: SAMPLE Brand MCP version, runtime paths, core capabilities, and packaged asset health. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling design-validation and generation tools, which operate on brand assets and files rather than server status.

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 states the intended use case: 'Use this to confirm a client loaded the latest rebuilt server after an update.' This gives the agent clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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