server_status

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already establish a safe, local, side-effect-free read, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful context about what is inspected (cursor position, installed optional tools), but says nothing about cost, latency, or whether the check can fail.

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?

A single economical clause listing the four returned categories, front-loaded with the most important item (reachability). It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is padded or wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the four result categories. The gap is the missing statement of purpose or invocation trigger, which would help an agent decide to call it.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 names the specific information the tool surfaces (reachability, cursor position, contact count, installed tools), which lets an agent distinguish it from the messaging-oriented siblings. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource is unambiguous and no sibling tool overlaps with a status/diagnostic role.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, why an agent would need it, or what condition triggers it. Nothing is misleading, but the agent must infer the use case entirely on its own.

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