get_server_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool checks connection status, script state, and project info, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, return format, or whether it might be indirectly altering state (unlikely for a status check). The description would benefit from clarifying that it is non-destructive and what output to expect.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and specifies all relevant subjects. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured, making it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's purpose quickly.

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 there is no output schema and no parameters, the description provides sufficient context by listing what the tool checks. It does not explain return values, but since no output schema is provided, this is not required. The description covers all necessary aspects for the tool's simple functionality.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. According to the rubric, a tool with zero parameters defaults to a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Check connection status') and specifies the resources involved ('Synthesizer V Studio 2, script, and current project info'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_project_info and get_server_logs by focusing on the overall server status, making it clear what this tool does.

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 description implies when to use this tool (e.g., to verify server connectivity and health), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide conditions for selection. Since there are sibling tools like get_project_info and get_server_logs, a more explicit usage guideline would be beneficial, but the context is still understandable.

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