server_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only, non-destructive probe of server and IDB state, which is useful, but it omits the return shape (what constitutes 'healthy'/ready), any cost or latency characteristics, and whether it touches the IDB at all. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though so terse that a few more words on the probe's output or scope would have earned their 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 single-parameter, annotation-free probe with no output schema, the description covers what is being checked and implies what is returned. Given how simple the tool is, this is close to sufficient, though it could say more about the result of the probe.

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% and there is a single required parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain the instance_id argument's routing role, which the schema already spells out.

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 a specific verb and resource: a health/ready probe covering both the MCP server and the current IDB state. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like server_warmup, idb_save, or instance_info. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from the closest sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied — a 'health/ready probe' suggests you call it to check liveness before issuing heavier operations, but no when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or alternative (e.g., server_warmup vs. this) is named. The schema's instance_id note points to instance_list, which helps route the call but is not usage guidance for the tool itself.

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