get_runtime_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive status, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value beyond them: it enumerates what the report contains and notes "with notes on anything missing," telling the agent the output is a diagnostic that flags absent resources rather than a bare path dump. "Never creates folders" is a useful reassurance even if it partly restates readOnlyHint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is reported, followed by when to use it and a safety note. The final "Read-only; it never creates folders" clause is partially redundant with the annotations, which is the only wasted space.

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?

Zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema mean the description only needs to cover purpose and trigger conditions, and it does both. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free by describing a full server-side report.

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 (report) and enumerates the exact resource set: server version, Stormworks vehicles folder, part definitions, stored designs, build cache, and tool timeout. No sibling tool in the list does anything comparable, so the agent can tell immediately that this is the environment/path diagnostics tool.

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?

"Use it when a tool cannot find the game, its parts or the player's vehicles" gives an explicit trigger condition for invocation, which is exactly the failure mode an agent would be confused about. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it, but the trigger is concrete enough to route correctly.

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