herdr status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered. The description adds the diagnostic-role context and mentions the version report, but does not describe failure behavior (e.g., what a non-running server returns), so added value beyond the structured fields is modest.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the troubleshooting hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 0-parameter, no-output-schema health check with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient: purpose plus invocation trigger are present. The only gap is not stating what a failed check looks like, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation.

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+resource ('Check that the herdr server is running') plus an output ('report its version'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling listing tools (workspace_list, tab_list, pane_list, agent_list). An agent can identify this as the health/diagnostic probe without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: 'Call this first if other herdr tools fail,' which tells the agent exactly when to reach for it versus continuing with a listing/agent tool. It stops short of a full when-not statement (e.g., don't call it for routine data retrieval), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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