Get server status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. The description adds behavioral value by specifying that this tool reveals version and initialization state, which goes beyond just being a read operation. It also hints that the response will be useful for API key compatibility checks, which is helpful behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences long with zero wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the tool's output, and the second sentence gives targeted usage advice. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is comprehensive enough. It states what the tool returns (version and initialization state), and gives a concrete use case (checking API key compatibility). There's no missing information that would impair correct agent 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema already tells the agent everything about the input. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but it does add context about the tool's output (version, initialization state, API key compatibility check) which indirectly helps the agent understand what the tool returns.

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 the tool returns 'Version and initialization state of the Audiobookshelf server', which is a specific verb+resource combination. The 'get_server_status' name could be generic but the description immediately specifies the exact resource ('Audiobookshelf server') and distinguishes it from any sibling 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?

The description explicitly says the tool is 'Useful to check connectivity' and provides a specific usage criterion: 'whether the server is new enough for API keys (2.26.0 or later)'. This gives the agent precise guidance on when to use this tool vs other alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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