health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that it checks IMAP connectivity for the folder and envelope surfaces, which implies a read-only operation, and mentions the default behavior (all accounts) and the option to test a specific account. However, it does not disclose whether the check has side effects (e.g., network calls that could be slow) or what the output format is. For a diagnostic tool, a 3 is fair.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and immediately provides usage guidance. Every word adds value with no 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?

Given the simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the presence of 27 sibling tools all focused on email operations, the description is complete for an agent to know when to call it and what it does. It could theoretically mention that the output is a health report, but with no output schema, the agent can infer it returns status information. The description adequately separates it from the operational siblings.

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 schema already provides a 100% coverage description for the single parameter, explaining it is optional and defaults to all accounts. The description adds no additional parameter information, but since the schema fully documents it, the description meets the baseline plus adds the context that this parameter selects a subset of accounts for testing.

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 the tool's purpose: checking himalaya-mcp installation health and per-account IMAP connectivity, specifically mentioning folder and envelope surfaces. This is distinct from the sibling tools, which all focus on email operations rather than connectivity diagnostics.

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 explicitly says to use it when an email tool fails, to diagnose which accounts are reachable. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives (e.g., other diagnostic tools), but among the siblings there are no competing diagnostic tools, so the guidance is clear enough.

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