get_mcp_status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description's job is light. It adds useful context about what information the status call returns and that it serves as a connection check, which helps the agent understand expected behavior beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the purpose ('Health check'), lists the return contents, and gives the usage hint without unnecessary wording.

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 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, this description fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly and understand what it will receive. Nothing important is missing for the task of selecting and invoking this tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description compensates by explaining what the no-argument call returns, which is the only relevant guidance needed here.

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 clearly identifies this as a health-check tool and specifies exactly what it reports: data source, counts of metrics/workouts, optional context files, and most recent data date. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools that retrieve specific data or insights.

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 instructs the agent to call this tool first to confirm the bridge is connected. This provides a clear decision rule for when to use it, and no alternative or exclusion is needed given it is the startup/connectivity check.

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