test_mcp_server

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

The description discloses that it sends a live check and returns success, response time, HTTP status, and any error. Annotations indicate idempotentHint false and openWorldHint true, which the description supports by mentioning external interaction. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage guidance. Highly efficient.

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 diagnostic tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, when to use, and what to expect in return. Complete given the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for the 'id' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Test connectivity to an MCP server' with a specific verb and resource, and the context of diagnosing reachability distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mcp_server.

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?

Explicitly advises use before configuration changes or when diagnosing reachability, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other use cases, though these can be inferred from sibling names.

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