status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does list the content of the status (pool statistics, open cursors, limits, file location), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or require any authentication. The nature of a status tool implies safety, but that is not explicitly disclosed.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Server status') and enumerates the key details concisely. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 status tool with no parameters and an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description is sufficient to convey what the tool returns. It does not mention potential caveats like error conditions or interpretation of results, but the output schema likely covers that, and the task is simple enough that the description provides adequate context.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 resource ('Server status') and lists concrete items it covers: profiles with pool statistics, open cursors, configured limits, profiles file location. This clearly indicates what the tool does and distinguishes it from related siblings like 'profiles' or 'profile' which likely focus on individual profile data rather than overall status.

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 its use for retrieving server status through the phrase 'Server status', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like 'overview' or 'profiles'. There are no exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the decision to inference.

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