glm_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it performs no mutations, nor does it mention required permissions or error behavior. For a status tool this is a small gap, but still undocumented.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The 'Returns' line adds a clear, useful note about the output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return value. However, it lacks a suggested use case or explicit behavior guarantee (e.g., read-only), so it is not a perfect 5. The presence of an output schema compensates for not explaining return values in detail.

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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource ('GLM MCP server status and configuration'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from all sibling tools that focus on content generation, analysis, and code operations. It is a precise verb+resource phrase.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its 12 siblings. The name and description imply a diagnostic purpose, but there is no explicit context such as 'Use this to verify server connectivity before running other GLM tools.' The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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