apisec_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Health check' implies a read-only status operation, but the description does not disclose what is checked, whether it verifies connectivity or authentication, or what a successful or failing response looks like.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter health check, the description gives the essential purpose but omits output/return value details and error behavior. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, this leaves some uncertainty, though the low complexity keeps the gap moderate.

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 confirms this with no properties. There is no parameter ambiguity for an agent to resolve, so the empty schema and description are sufficient.

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 states the tool is a health check for API Security MCP, which clearly identifies the operation and target resource. It is distinct from the sibling scan and check tools, though it does not explicitly name them or use a verb like 'returns'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus apisec_scan_spec or apisec_checks. The intended use as a preflight status check is implied but never stated, so an agent must infer whether this should be called before other operations.

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