Listmonk status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete return shape {health, about, config}, which tells the agent this is a lightweight probe, though it says nothing about auth requirements or whether the probe is expensive.

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 the resource and immediately followed by the usage cue and return shape. No filler; 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?

For a zero-param tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the top-level return keys, which is the main thing an agent needs to interpret results. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at what 'health' contains or how failures surface, but it is adequate for a status probe.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is satisfied. The schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, consistent with the description's implicit no-argument call.

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 resource (server health, version, build info) with clear scope, and is distinguishable from siblings like listmonk_settings_get or listmonk_dashboard_counts which expose config/aggregates rather than server state. An agent can tell what this returns without opening a schema.

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?

"Start here when diagnosing anything" gives explicit entry-point guidance that places this tool first in a diagnostic sequence. It stops short of naming specific alternatives (e.g., use listmonk_logs for error detail), so the exclusion side is implicit.

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