server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes by enumerating the returned data categories, which partly substitutes for the absent output schema, but it says nothing about cost, freshness, or how the optional connection affects scope.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every item in the list corresponds to real returned data. It reads as a label fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly weakens it but costs no 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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is necessary and is provided, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the sole parameter is undocumented and there is no routing guidance among 28 siblings, leaving the definition adequate but not complete for an agent selecting and invoking 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?

There is one optional parameter, 'connection', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell from either source whether supplying a connection targets a specific server versus the default one, and for a single-parameter tool this gap is conspicuous rather than a baseline-4 case.

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 names the resource (server) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: version, uptime, connections, operation counters, memory, replication role. That is more informative than a bare verb, but it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings such as current_ops or test_connection, so an agent has no explicit signal for choosing between them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this before diagnosing, or to prefer current_ops for active operations. The agent must infer usage purely from the field list, which is not guidance.

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