mcp_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does reasonably well: 'Live status' signals a dynamic read, and the enumerated fields include 'errors', telling the agent it can surface per-server failures. It does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it probes servers actively, or what happens when a child server is unreachable beyond the 'errors' field.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its return contents, then the routing guidance. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it gets back in the absence of an output schema.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and with zero parameters there is nothing else to cover on the input side. Minor gaps remain: no note on permissions, latency, or whether 'Live' means an active probe of each child server.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document; the 4 baseline applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the empty schema does not support.

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?

States a specific resource ('Live status of every child MCP server') and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, type, enabled, connected, tool/resource counts, tool names, errors). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by name, so an agent can tell it apart from search_tools/invoke_tool without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes usage ('Use this for roster') and names the tools it is not for (search_tools/invoke_tool descriptions). The exclusion is a little terse — it doesn't spell out the selecting condition beyond 'roster' — but the when/when-not framing is clear enough to guide selection.

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