get_system_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The 'Get' and 'check' wording reasonably imply a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'comprehensive health status' communicates scope. However, it does not say what the response looks like or what happens when services are unhealthy.

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?

Two sentence: a plain scope statement then a direct use. No extraneous words, usable for instant scanning, and the actionable guidance is front-loaded.

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?

With no params and no output schema, the description explains ha and when to call, but leaves important return semantics unspecified (what the health result contains and how availability is signalled). It's adequate for a simple health check, but not richly complete.

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?

anceParameter count is 0 and schema_description_coverage is 100%, so the schema is complete and parameter semantics are triv. The description adds no parameter details needed because no parameters exist.

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 (get), resource (health status of all MCP backend services), and scope (comprehensive,all). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_service_health or get_all_apps_status, so the name alone leaves some ambiguity, but the description is still clear.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool before making other calls to check availability, which gives a clear temporal/orchestration context. It doesn't explain when we'd use a sibling health/status tool instead, but the core use case is clear.

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