health_check

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'reports' liveness and versions, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or confirm that it does not modify any state. The lack of these disclosures is a minor gap for such a simple health-check tool.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and target. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler text. It is exemplary in conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple, has no parameters, and includes an output schema, which the description does not need to explain. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and expected information. A slight lack of context around what 'contract versions' entails is the only minor omission.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% by vacuity. With zero parameters, the description does not need to explain anything further. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is no complexity to compensate for.

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 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource: MCP process liveness and server/contract versions. It distinguishes this diagnostic tool from sibling operations like query execution or schema management by focusing on health/status information.

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 implies usage for checking MCP server health but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or situations where this tool is not appropriate. The context is clear enough that an agent would infer its purpose, but explicit guidance is missing.

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