jumpserver_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes beyond them by guaranteeing 'Never returns credentials' and by exposing token-expiry and probe-verified target state, which the agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not describe behavior when no connector session exists, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 tightly packed sentences with the reported fields front-loaded and the safety/caveat clauses trailing. No filler and no redundancy against the schema or annotations.

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 description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned state fields and the credential-exclusion guarantee. The only gap is the absence of any statement about the response when no session/gateway is active.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or obscure.

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?

Specific verb ('Report') plus a precise resource ('connector state') followed by the exact fields surfaced: session, gateway, entered target, permission mode, console URL, token expiry, and settings completeness. No sibling in the list offers the same read-only state report, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 implicitly scopes use to inspecting connection/session state and explicitly routes a related need elsewhere ('to invalidate the console token use jumpserver_console_rotate_token'). It does not state a positive trigger condition (e.g., 'call before entering a target'), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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