contradiction.health.check

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

The description goes beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations by specifying what the check covers (database connectivity, storage metrics, connectors, runtime diagnostics) and adding that it is safe for repeated invocation. The 'Read-only' phrasing echoes the annotations but does not contradict them and contributes useful operational context.

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 with no redundancy: the first states the tool's core function and scope, the second adds usage guidance. The information is front-loaded and every phrase contributes value.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only health check with a rich output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it checks, and when to use it. The output schema handles return values, and none of the sibling tools relate to health checks, so nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter (verbose) is fully described in the schema with its purpose, example values, and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but it does not need to because the schema already carries the full burden.

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 ('Checks') with a clearly defined resource ('operational status of the Contradiction MCP server') and enumerates exact aspects of that resource (SQLite connectivity, storage metrics, active connectors, runtime diagnostics). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on conflicts, sources, and claims.

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 usage context: it is 'safe to invoke frequently for readiness and liveness probing.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but among the given siblings there is no other health-check tool, and the guidance is clear enough to select it when probing server status.

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