This fmrl-mcp's status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and idempotent, but the description adds real context beyond them: the default answer comes from memory and local files alone, verbose adds bounded network calls that take 'a few seconds at most', and it never mints a key, writes a file, or changes anything. The only gap is that it doesn't describe how the report is structured, which matters somewhat given there is no output schema.

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?

It is front-loaded with what is reported, then usage guidance, then behavioral caveats, and every sentence carries content. There is mild duplication between the verbose sentence in the description and the verbose parameter's own schema description.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the report's contents in both default and verbose modes. Combined with the latency bound and the no-side-effects guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the single parameter's schema description already enumerates reachability, quota, inbox and npm checks. The description largely restates that with the same enumeration plus the framing that the default path is local-only, adding modest value over the schema rather than new semantics.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (report) and enumerates exactly what is reported: version, uptime, launcher, plugin currency, key and key ring, last API call. It explicitly distinguishes itself from fmrl_whoami, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

It states when to use it ('troubleshoot or check versions') and names the alternative for the adjacent need ('for the key's quota and account, use fmrl_whoami'). The verbose paragraph further explains when to escalate from the local-only default to network checks.

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