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 burden. It discloses what gets verified (tool binaries, Python deps, wordlists) and what the return payload includes (status per category, missing tools with install hints, available wordlists), implicitly framing the tool as a safe, non-destructive preflight read. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only/auth behavior but covers the operation well.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage timing, and return format. Information is front-loaded with the core 'Preflight check' framing, and the 'Returns:' line is efficiently structured with zero waste.

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 0-param tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the essentials: what it verifies, when to run it, and exactly what it returns (status per category, missing tools with install hints, available wordlists). No material gaps exist for this tool's simplicity.

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 input schema is empty with 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details that don't apply.

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 opens with 'Preflight check — verifies all tool binaries, Python deps, and wordlists,' providing a specific verb (verifies) and clear resource scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_binary (which checks a single binary) by explicitly checking ALL binaries, deps, and wordlists holistically.

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 second sentence gives explicit timing guidance: 'Run this at the start of an engagement to avoid surprises mid-workflow.' This is clear context for when the tool should be used, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which is a minor gap for a 0-parameter health check.

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