health

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

The description indicates a read-only status check, which is non-destructive. No annotations exist, but the description itself is transparent enough for a simple health check tool, though it lacks details on potential side effects or authorization requirements.

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 very short and to the point, with no unnecessary information. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly expanded to improve completeness without becoming verbose.

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?

The description lists the items whose status is returned, which is useful. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the output. Since an output schema exists, the lack of detail is partially mitigated, but the description could be more explicit about what the output contains.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The schema coverage is 100% by default, and the description does not repeat schema info. Baseline of 4 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 that the tool checks the status of the server, KiCad, kicad-cli, and the active project. It uses a specific verb ('Estado' implying status retrieval) and resource list, making the purpose easy to understand.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, this is less critical, but a note about using it for pre-operation checks would improve clarity.

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