jetbrains_ide_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details what is checked (configured, reachable, project-ready, tool exposed) and notes optional status. However, it doesn't state whether the probe is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences with all critical information front-loaded. First sentence enumerates checks; second adds optional behavior and usage. No wasted words.

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 parameterless diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is probed, optional behavior, and usage intent. No missing context given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about the tool's checks (configuration, reachability, etc.) beyond what the schema shows, adding value.

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?

Description clearly states it probes the JetBrains MCP Server and reports on configuration, reachability, project-readiness, and exposure of specific tool get_file_problems. It distinguishes from sibling tools like code_quality_* and jetbrains_inspect_* by being diagnostic instead of analytical.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this for diagnostics,' providing clear usage intent. While it doesn't compare to alternatives, the diagnostic nature sets it apart from sibling action tools, and no exclusion criteria are needed.

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