Health Check

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses what is validated (connection plus presence of all tables, including the full-text search table) and the shape of the response. It stops short of explicitly stating there are no side effects or auth requirements, but for a zero-param health probe the behavioral surface is well covered.

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?

Bold-labeled sections (Use quando / Retorna / Exemplo / Notas) front-load the purpose and keep the reader oriented. The example line is near-redundant for a no-argument tool and the Retorna fields partly duplicate the existing output schema, costing a little efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, yet the description still enumerates the return fields (status, database, version, schema_version, toolset) and the validation notes. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this leaves nothing an agent needs unresolved.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description's 'Exemplo: health_check()' correctly reinforces that no arguments are accepted, consistent with the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('Verifica a saúde do servidor MCP e do banco default') that is unambiguous and distinguishable from every sibling, none of which are diagnostic tools. An agent immediately understands this reports server/database health.

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?

'Use quando: Diagnosticar falhas ou confirmar que o servidor está operacional' gives explicit when-to-use conditions. There is no sibling alternative to route against, so no exclusion is needed, but the guidance is clear rather than implied.

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