hcm_health

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=truehol, and the description is consistent with that. It adds that the tool targets the configured HCM REST base and is an unofficial MCP wrapper, but it does not disclose response format, timeout behavior, or whether it merely pings the base URL. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One terse, front-loaded sentence contains the essential scope ('configured HCM REST base') and a relevant caveat ('unofficial MCP'). There is no filler or redundant content.

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 parameterless, read-only health check, the description covers the core purpose and target sufficiently. It does not specify what result the agent should expect, and there is no output schema, but the tool's semantics are predictable from its name and description.

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 input schema has zero parametersahan, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check connectivity to the configured HCM REST base'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling hcm_test_connection, which appears to perform a similar connectivity check.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool compared with hcm_test_connection, hcm_setup_status, hcm_probe_capabilities, or related diagnostic tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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