system

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operations. The description adds useful context about specific operations like 'execute_lisp' being for 'File IPC only' and mentioning 'spawn diagnostics' for runtime, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with a brief header followed by a bulleted operation list, making it easy to scan. Each operation is succinctly described. However, the 'execute_lisp' line could be more concise, and some operations lack clarity (e.g., 'runtime' vs 'status').

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's complexity (multiple operations) and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete—it doesn't explain all parameters or their relationships. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description should better clarify operation-specific behaviors and parameter usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'data: {code}' for the execute_lisp operation, leaving 'operation' and 'include_screenshot' parameters unexplained. This insufficiently compensates for the schema gap.

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 as 'Server status and management' and lists specific operations, providing a good overview of what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this system management tool from its siblings (annotation, block, drawing, etc.), which are presumably CAD-related tools.

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 usage context through the operation list (e.g., 'health' for quick checks, 'init' for re-initialization), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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