healthcheck

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it reports the backend system identity, session state, active tool profile, round-trip latency, and failure information about session death. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single dense sentence but front-loads the core purpose ('Check ADT connectivity') before enumerating outputs. It could be split for readability, but every clause carries useful information with no filler.

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-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what will happen, what will be returned on success, and what will be reported on failure. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 is empty (0 parameters) and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description focuses entirely on what the tool returns, which is appropriate for a parameterless healthcheck.

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 ADT connectivity,' then details exactly what the call reports. Among the sibling tools, this is clearly distinct as a diagnostic/health check rather than a mutation or retrieval operation.

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 gives clear context: use this to verify connectivity and session state. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to invoke it versus login/logout or other session-related tools.

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