get_mcp_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's purpose (read-only health check) but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, requires no special permissions, or has any rate limits. A 3 is appropriate as the description is adequate but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Health check'), and each sentence adds essential information. There is no unnecessary verbiage.

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?

Given no input parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's functionality: it returns data source info, counts, and most recent date. The instruction to call it first provides sufficient context for an agent.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details as none 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?

The description clearly states it is a health check that verifies data source connectivity, counts of metrics/workouts, and most recent data date. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_health_metrics or query_health_data, which focus on individual data points rather than overall status.

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 description explicitly recommends calling this tool first to confirm the bridge is connected, providing clear context for use. While it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient for a health check tool.

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