Check Server Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: this is a free diagnostic that does not consume API quota and can verify API key configuration. This is meaningful behavioral detail for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, usage, arguments, returns, and use cases. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because the Args and Returns sections partially duplicate the schema and output schema, but each section still earns its place by reinforcing key operational details.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only, idempotent status tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, when to use it, return contents, and quota behavior. An agent has everything it needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'verbose' parameter. The description repeats the same information ('Include detailed system info (default: false)') without adding new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check the health and status of the SeeDream MCP server.' It is immediately distinguishable from the image-generation siblings such as seedream_generate and seedream_edit, since this tool is a diagnostic health check rather than an image operation.

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 gives explicit 'Use when' scenarios including first connection, troubleshooting failed generation, and checking API key configuration. It also adds the useful note that the tool does not consume API quota. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative diagnostic tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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