Profile summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes what the tool returns but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior on invalid profileId. It implies a read-only operation but lacks explicit confirmation.

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 sentence that front-loads key information. It is concise and lists all relevant metrics, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 no output schema, the description effectively explains what will be returned (list of health metrics). It covers the essential information for a summary tool. However, it could include details about the diagnosis verdict and how metrics are aggregated.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'profileId'. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format or constraints). Baseline of 3 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 it provides a 'headline health summary' and enumerates specific metrics like server/MC version, TPS, heap, etc. This differentiates it from other tools like 'diagnose' or 'get_health' that likely provide more detailed or different perspectives.

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 implies usage for a quick overview of server health, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'diagnose' or 'get_health'. There is no mention of exclusions or specific contexts.

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