Pathfinder MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool checks health and returns status, but doesn't specify what 'status' includes (e.g., uptime, metrics, errors), whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects like logging or performance impact. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 concise and front-loaded with a single sentence ('Check server health and return status.'), which efficiently states the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by elaborating on what 'health' means, but it earns high marks for brevity and clarity.

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 tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (which should cover return values), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks depth on behavioral aspects like what 'health' entails or usage context. For a simple health check tool, it's passable but could be more informative to fully guide an agent.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing 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 states the tool's purpose ('Check server health and return status'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('server health'), but doesn't distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'compact_context' or 'save_plan'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'health' entails.

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 alternatives. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'start_plan' or 'save_research', there's no indication of how this tool fits into workflows. It's a basic statement without usage context.

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