pc_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the read-only nature and enumerates the inspected items, which is good behavioral context for a status tool. It doesn't mention rate limits or errors, but this is a simple zero-parameter status check.

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, front-loaded with the action verb 'Inspect' and a compact list of inspected components. 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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema available, the description covers what is inspected and confirms the read-only nature. The sibling list shows this is the only server-status probe, so context is complete.

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 input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter details, but that's unnecessary here. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and enumerates exactly what is inspected (MCP server, computer identity, access mode, roots, endpoint, audit-log location). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling file/process tools by focusing on server-level metadata and explicitly stating 'Read-only.'

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool—when you need to inspect server identity, access mode, roots, endpoint, or audit-log location. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, so it's not a full 5.

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