sac_server_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It explicitly states that no secrets are exposed, which adds safety confidence. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects (likely none). For a simple read-only check, this is sufficient 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Check'. It contains no redundant information and every word is informative. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of functionality: checking server status, uptime, and connection configuration. It does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON keys), but for a health check tool, this omission is minor. Overall, it is mostly complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds meaning by specifying what is checked (uptime and connection configuration), which goes beyond the schema. For zero-parameter tools, baseline is 4, and the description adds extra context, so a score of 5 is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check the MCP server status including uptime and connection configuration'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sac_update_user, sac_list_teams, etc., which focus on different resources (users, teams, stories). The verb 'Check' and resource 'server status' are specific and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when not to use it. It provides no exclusion criteria or alternatives. However, since it's a health check tool with no parameters, the use case is generally obvious. Score reflects the lack of explicit guidance.

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