health

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The word 'Verify' suggests a read-only diagnostic rather than a mutating operation, and the listed components clarify the scope. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, what a successful verification looks like, or how results are reported.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then enumerates the exact verification targets. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple no-argument health check, the description adequately enumerates what is verified across the environment. It does not explain return values, but there is no output schema and the main missing piece—when to use it—is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 zero parameters, so parameter-level documentation is unnecessary. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description adds no conflicting parameter information.

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 a specific verb ('Verify') and names the resource scope: MT5 install, MetaEditor, terminal, data dir, Experts, Tester, and build. It is clear what the tool checks, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling validation tools such as validate_tester_ini or validate_ea_standard.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this health check versus the many sibling tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or whether it should be run first. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and the generic verification wording.

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