server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by listing the kinds of status information returned (simulators, config, sandbox paths, runtime state), which goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first front-loads the action and resource with specific details, and the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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 low-complexity (one optional parameter, no nesting) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It sufficiently covers what the tool reports and when to use it, making it complete for this 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional 'format' parameter, so the schema fully documents semantics. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive server status'), and enumerates concrete contents: detected simulators, configuration settings, security sandbox paths, and runtime state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as run_simulation or check_job.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this to check what capabilities are available before attempting operations.' It implies a pre-flight check role but does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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