server_status

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

The description accurately portrays a read-only status check, returning version and status info. Without annotations, the description sufficiently indicates no destructive side effects. It could be more explicit about being non-destructive, but the nature of 'check' and 'status' implies safety.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides essential return value details.

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?

For a simple health check with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage guidance, and return values. It could specify the format of the returned fields (e.g., version string), but it is not critical.

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 0 parameters, so no parameter description is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4 per the scoring rules, and the description does not need to add more.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'Camofox server health and browser connection', and explicitly lists return values (version, browser status, active tab count). This distinguishes it from the many action-oriented sibling tools (e.g., click, navigate) which perform browser operations rather than health checks.

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 phrase 'Call first to verify server is running' provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (before other operations). It implies a prerequisite step, but does not explicitly list when not to use or discuss alternative tools, which would raise the score to 5.

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