HokAI

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 only states 'Fetch' without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, or required permissions. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it could benefit from additional context without harming conciseness. It is not overly verbose, but it is also not optimally informative.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description does not elaborate on what the tools-tree JSON contains or why an agent would fetch it. More context would improve usability.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate per scoring rules.

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 states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'Hokai tools-tree JSON', but does not explain what a 'tools-tree' is or how it relates to sibling tools. It is clear in a minimal sense but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'scanner_status'. There is no context about the appropriate scenario for fetching the tools-tree.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only states 'Simple health check', which is vague. It does not disclose what response is returned (e.g., status code, object), nor any side effects or authorization requirements.

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 with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core 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?

While the tool is simple, the lack of output schema means the health check behavior is underspecified. The description could clarify expected output (e.g., 'returns status object' or 'returns OK if server is running'). Still adequate for a trivial tool, but room for improvement.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly omits them.

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 explicitly states it is a 'health check for the MCP server', providing a specific verb (check) and resource (MCP server). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_tools_tree', which lists tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. The description implies it is for checking server health, but does not mention alternatives or contexts where it should not be used. The sibling is unrelated, so no direct comparison is needed.

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