get_mcp_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world safety. The description adds genuine context beyond them by detailing the returned content, including the recompute summary and days too old to rebuild, which is behavior an agent needs to interpret results. It omits auth/rate-limit notes, but none appear relevant for a local diagnostic.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the purpose ("Health check") before listing outputs. It is dense but every clause carries informational value; no filler or repetition.

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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the key fields returned, so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with the annotations and the entry-point instruction, this is nearly complete for a zero-parameter diagnostic 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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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+resource (health check / status) and enumerates exactly what it reports: data source, metric/workout counts, context files, most recent data date, and recompute summary. An agent can distinguish this diagnostic tool from all data-fetching siblings like list_metrics or query_health_data.

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?

"Call this first to confirm the bridge is connected" gives clear, actionable when-to-use guidance and implies precedence over the other tools. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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