server_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It explains what each field returns, notes that engine values are stable while health values change per call, and mentions a limitation (lastRpc only tracks stdio transport). No contradictions.

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 relatively long but well-structured with clear sections for engine, imageDiff, and health. It front-loads the purpose and each sentence adds value. Slight verbosity in health subfields but acceptable.

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?

Given the complexity (three main components with subfields), one optional parameter, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains return value semantics, stable vs changing fields, and a transport limitation. All necessary context is provided.

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?

Only one parameter ('include') with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; the schema already clearly explains the parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Return MCP server status.' which is a clear verb+resource. It then details the specific components (engine, imageDiff, health) and distinguishes the tool from siblings by being about server diagnostics, not UI automation.

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 provides clear context on when to use ('Diagnostic metadata — do not surface unless the user asks about performance/troubleshooting.'), implying a conditional use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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