mcp_vision_augment_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the tool excludes keys ('不含密钥'), which is an important behavioral trait regarding sensitive data. It also implies a read-only, non-destructive nature by calling it a probe/detection, but does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('环境探测') and then elaborates on components and outputs. Every clause adds value without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: what is checked, that keys are excluded, and the kind of feedback provided (missing configurations and install commands). It does not specify the exact output format, but this is a minor gap for a health check tool.

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 and the schema is empty (100% coverage). Baseline for no parameters is 4; no additional parameter explanations are necessary since there are none to describe.

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 (检查/check) and concrete resources (视觉通道/Ollama/OCR/文档引擎), clearly indicating a health/environment probe. It distinguishes itself from siblings like mcp_vision_augment_vision (which likely performs vision tasks) and clear_cache (cache management) by focusing on configuration status.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to detect missing configurations and provide installation commands. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full usage guidance with exclusions.

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