get_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does state the scope (server plus its configured database connection), implying a read-only diagnostic with no side effects. It stops short of describing what a healthy vs. unhealthy result implies or any auth/rate-limit considerations, though the output schema likely covers the result shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place for a zero-argument diagnostic 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately conveys the check's target. It could optionally note what the check is for (e.g., verifying connectivity before queries), but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none is needed.

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 verb ("Check") and resource ("the server and its configured database connection"), which clearly separates it from the data-retrieval siblings like search_nodes and get_episodes. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the health-check intent is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is a connectivity/health probe to run before or after other calls. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus the siblings, nor any preconditions or failure-handling guidance.

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