Checks backend health of a KYT screening engine, returning 'ok' when the service is responsive to ensure compliance operations proceed without interruption.
Backend health probe. Returns 'ok' when the KYT screening engine is responsive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the success case (returns 'ok' when responsive) but does not specify what happens when the engine is not responsive—whether it returns an error, throws, or returns a different status. This is a significant gap for a health probe.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It contains no extraneous information and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 is incomplete for a health probe because it only covers the healthy response and omits failure behavior. Without an output schema, the description should specify possible return values or error semantics, but it does not. This is a clear gap given the tool's purpose.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no issue here.
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 is a backend health probe that returns 'ok' when the engine is responsive. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from the screening, lookup, and case management siblings, which all perform distinct operations.
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 this tool is for checking service availability, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.