Server statistics

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing exactly what fields are returned (start time, memory count, persistence count) and explicitly flags the persistence count behavior under zero-persistence mode. This adds complete and valuable behavioral context.

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 verb and resource, immediately states the scope, and lists all returned data points concisely. Every word earns its place with 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a behavioral note (zero-persistence mode). No gaps remain for an agent to be uncertain.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so schema is complete. The description adds no parameter info, but no further meaning is needed—there are no parameters to document.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('Rustpad server statistics'), then lists the three exact data points provided: start time, in-memory documents, and persisted documents. It clearly distinguishes this read-only server-level tool from the document-level siblings (get_document, get_document_info, etc.).

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 states what the tool does and implicitly sets context for when to use it (checking server health/state). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with similar siblings (e.g., get_document_info for document-level stats). Given the zero-parameter, read-only nature, the lack of exclusions is acceptable.

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