health

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: it clarifies the tool inspects local configuration without network traffic and flags that live=true is tied to a paid provider check.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core behavior, the second provides the only conditional parameter guidance. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, a rich annotation set (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and an output schema. The description fully covers when and how to invoke it, including the paid-provider edge case, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explains that live defaults to a local check and should only be set to true for an explicit paid provider check, which is essential semantic information beyond the raw boolean schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect local MCP configuration'. It also adds the distinctive behavior 'without making a network request', which separates it from the generic sibling names like check, verify, and evaluate.

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 gives clear context for the default mode (local, no network) and an explicit conditional for live=true: 'only for an explicit paid provider check'. It does not name sibling tools or exclusions, but for this simple one-parameter tool the usage guidance is sufficient.

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