advisor_healthReports non-secret configuration and verifies the configured provider has credentials without making a model request, so you can confirm setup before consulting.
Report non-secret configuration and verify that the configured provider has credentials. Does not make a model request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful context: it discloses that only 'non-secret' config is reported (a security/privacy guarantee) and that it 'does not make a model request' (a side-effect boundary). These go beyond the annotations, though it stops short of explaining permissions or error modes when credentials are missing.
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, tightly front-loaded with the core action, followed by the crucial side-effect clarification. No filler, every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-param read-only diagnostic with annotation coverage, the description supplies what matters: what is reported, what is verified, what is not done. Without an output schema it does not describe the response shape (e.g., per-provider pass/fail fields), which is the only remaining gap for an agent calling it.
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?
Zero-parameter tool, which is the baseline-4 case. There are no parameters to misinterpret, and the empty schema is fully consistent with a no-arg health check.
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?
States specific operations: report non-secret configuration and verify configured provider credentials. The verb+resource is clear. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the session-oriented siblings (get/consult/update/reset), relying on the reader to infer it is a distinct diagnostics tool rather than an advisor-session interaction.
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 says what it does but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over siblings or when a health check is warranted. There are no exclusions or alternatives named, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.