score_server

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states 'runs all checks' but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., launching a server or modifying state), whether it requires permissions, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient transparency for a tool that executes commands.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary use case, and efficiently enumerates the checks and output. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (0-100 score, A-F grade, breakdown across multiple dimensions). It lists the areas checked but could mention prerequisites (e.g., server must be running) or result interpretation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely repeats the concept of 'command' and 'args' without deepening understanding.

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 explicitly states the action ('get a quick health grade') and the target ('an MCP server'), listing the checks performed and output format. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'scan' or 'check_server' but does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 mentions 'Use this to get a quick health grade', implying usage context. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives such as 'verify' or 'check_server' for more detailed checks.

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