runtime_status

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

With no annotations, the description communicates the tool's non-destructive nature via 'Report', and it adds context by scoping to the server's own runtime and configuration. However, it doesn't elaborate on potential failure modes or access requirements, though this is acceptable for a status endpoint.

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 sentence, front-loaded, with no wasted words. It perfectly achieves conciseness while conveying the essential purpose.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It provides enough information for an agent to select the tool for server status checks without needing further explanation.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema already documents everything (100% coverage), and the baseline for zero params is 4.

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 identifies the tool's function with the verb 'Report' and specifies the resource as 'this MCP server's own runtime and configuration status', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on external resources or observability metrics.

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 use when an agent needs to check the server's runtime or configuration state. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the clarity of 'own...status' provides sufficient context for when to invoke. No exclusions are needed for such a simple introspection tool.

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