auth_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Health check' without disclosing what the check entails, whether it is read-only, what information it returns, or if any side effects exist. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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 with no unnecessary words. It earns its place perfectly.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero params, output schema present), the description is minimally viable but lacks detail about what 'health' means (e.g., connectivity, uptime) or how the result should be interpreted. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't reference it, leaving the agent to guess.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per baseline rules, a 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to convey beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's purpose: a health check for the auth-mcp server. The verb 'check' and resource 'auth-mcp server' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling auth operation tools by focusing on health status.

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 when to use: when needing to verify the health of the auth-mcp server. While it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, the context is clear that this is a diagnostic tool, distinct from the operational auth tools listed.

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