preform_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate the safety profile. It adds valuable context beyond the annotations by specifying 'without touching PreFormServer'—a stronger guarantee than generic read-only—and by disclosing the specific items it reports, including the Wine-specific path rewriting behavior. This helps the agent understand exactly what information it will get without side effects.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main action ('Report how this MCP server is set up without touching PreFormServer') and then lists the specific data points it covers. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool does, what it reports, and when to use it relative to health_check. It even addresses the failure case ('whether PreFormServer is installed') and the Wine-specific path mapping, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters for the description to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter details. It correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than on parameters that do not exist.

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 a specific action ('Report how this MCP server is set up') and enumerates the exact resources and aspects it covers: installation location, version, mode, allowed directories, and path rewriting. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling health_check by positioning this as a pre-check that does not touch PreFormServer, so an agent can differentiate it without opening schemas.

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 says 'Use it to diagnose setup problems before health_check', providing a concrete when-to-use directive and naming the related sibling health_check. It also implies a non-use case with 'without touching PreFormServer', but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative diagnostic tools beyond health_check, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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