distillery_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 of behavioral disclosure. While it details the return schema (which implies a read-only probe), it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a status tool, this is acceptable but not fully transparent about whether any modification occurs.

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 (USE WHEN, PARAMS, RETURNS, RELATED). The main purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and every section adds relevant information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a status probe.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description provides a detailed return schema covering all expected fields and types. It also gives usage guidance and related alternatives. For a tool with no parameters, this is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about what the agent can expect when calling it.

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 the description states 'PARAMS: (none)' while the schema is an empty object. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no extra meaning but confirms the absence of required inputs, which is mildly helpful.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a lightweight in-protocol health/metadata probe.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like distillery_list (entry counts/filtering) and distillery_configure (runtime configuration). The related section also reinforces the distinction.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'USE WHEN: verifying MCP connectivity... without relying on the HTTP-only /health endpoint.' It also names alternatives (distillery_list, distillery_configure) and explains what they are for, providing clear routing guidance.

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