mp_healthCheck

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only, does not fix anything, explains key fields like needsRecovery, and warns about serverVersion meaning. It also mentions potential warnings from failed probes. This sets clear expectations.

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 fairly long but well-structured with sections. It front-loads the essential purpose and usage. While every sentence adds value, some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating '不修复任何东西'). Could be slightly tighter, but still effective.

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 complexity (health check with multiple fields) and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return fields (summary, needsRecovery, lastScreenshotOk, etc.), edge cases (degraded but no recovery), and parameter behavior. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the default values and effects of includeLogs and includePage, and details the connection parameter including the port warning. Schema coverage is low (33%), but the description compensates fully.

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 clearly states it is a read-only aggregation of automation environment health status, listing specific components it checks (connections, page route, project, logs, last screenshot result). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mp_recoverConnection and mp_ensureConnection by stating it does not fix anything.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: '操作出问题时先调它看全局状态' and after repeated screenshot failures. It also clarifies when not to use mp_recoverConnection (only when needsRecovery=true) and warns against looping reconnect. This is comprehensive.

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