server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scoping detail ('which local directories it may read'), but it does not disclose any other behavioral aspects like potential network calls, authentication requirements, or response format specifics. Given the low bar set by annotations, this is adequate but not outstanding.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's function. It is maximally concise while remaining informative.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema, so return values are already covered. The description covers the essential information an agent needs to decide to call it and what to expect. Nothing critical is missing for a status-reporting tool.

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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, with no parameters the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 ('Report') and resource ('OpenBot MCP server version' and 'local directories it may read'). It is precise and unambiguous, and there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, so it fully establishes 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 implies when to use it: whenever you need server version or directory access info. Since there are no alternatives or siblings, it doesn't need to explicitly route away from other tools. The clarity of purpose makes the usage obvious, though it doesn't spell out any conditions or exclusions.

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