get_server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the optional includeTime behavior, which is useful. It doesn't mention response format or error cases, but the output schema likely covers return values.

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?

One concise sentence with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the optional parameter is mentioned naturally.

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 read-only status tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly state that no authentication is required or that it's safe to call, but the annotations already convey that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the includeTime parameter. The description mentions 'optionally including the server clock,' which aligns with the parameter but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('N-central service health and API version'), and adds the optional server clock detail. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_session or get_current_user, which target different resources.

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 this is a health/status check tool, and the readOnlyHint annotation reinforces that it is safe to call. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for health/version checks.

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