server_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, safe, or requires permissions. It only states the basic action without side-effect or safety information.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core intent. Every word contributes meaning, and the description is precisely as long as necessary.

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 no output schema, the description could benefit from mentioning what 'status' includes (e.g., uptime, health, number of servers). However, for a parameterless tool with clear scope, the description is minimally adequate but missing return value details.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. It correctly describes the output scope without ambiguity.

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 'Get the status of all running llama-servers' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like server_metrics (specific metrics) and server_slots (specific slots). It precisely states the scope ('all running llama-servers').

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like server_metrics or server_slots. No mention of prerequisites, frequency, or alternatives. The description only states functionality without contextual usage advice.

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