meridian_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool relies on MERIDIAN_API_URL and MERIDIAN_API_KEY and that it performs a connectivity check and lists tools/resources. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, describe error behavior, or clarify what 'connectivity' entails beyond a basic check.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose, mentions the relevant environment variables in parentheses, and ends with a clear 'No params.' Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the purpose, the dependencies, and what the output should include ('available tools/resources'). It does not describe the exact response format, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to successfully invoke the tool.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% per the empty properties object. The description explicitly confirms 'No params,' which removes any ambiguity. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies, and no further parameter information is 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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Meridian API connectivity') and adds the secondary function of listing available tools/resources. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which perform domain operations like listing services or creating requests.

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 clearly implies this tool is for verifying API connectivity and discovering available tools/resources before using other operations. While it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, no overlapping sibling exists, so the intended context is clear.

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