editor_host_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the host is a pipe server that outlives script reloads, and collect=true triggers a full GC that is slow on a large heap. That performance caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then the returned fields; nothing is padding. It is dense and slightly run-on, packing return fields and a parameter caveat into a single sentence, but every clause carries information.

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?

A read-only, single-parameter diagnostic with a full output schema, so return-value documentation is not strictly needed — though the description restates the fields anyway, which is mildly redundant but helps an agent judge relevance. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the rationale ('so that count is a measurement') and the cost of setting it, which tells the agent why and when to enable it rather than just what it does.

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 resource ('Returns the state of the bridge host') and enumerates exactly what that state includes: version, start time, plugin generation, attach/detach counts, memory/GC, and leaked load contexts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby diagnostics siblings like server_info or flax_status, which keeps it from a 5.

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 a clear cost/benefit signal for the one parameter ('collect=true ... takes long on a large heap'), which is genuine usage guidance. However it never says when to prefer this tool over server_info, flax_status, or logs_tail, so the when-to-use routing is only implied.

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