get_server_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe for repeated calls, but the return structure implies a non-destructive health check. This is adequate but could be more explicit about side effects or permission requirements.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, args, returns. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence provides value. It could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of return fields covering server, health, database, indexing, performance, cache, embedder, file_watcher, errors, and configuration. This is more than sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's output. The single parameter is fully covered. Sibling tools are distinct, so no missing context.

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 one parameter 'detail_level' is fully explained in the description with examples of values ('basic', 'full') and what each returns. The schema only provides name, type, and default, so the description adds essential semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get comprehensive MCP server status and health information.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from siblings like get_index_status, get_session_summary, etc. No confusion about what the tool does.

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 when you need to check server health, performance metrics, indexing progress, or debug issues with the memory system.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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