moxie_health_check

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

The description indicates a read-only check operation (idempotent, no side effects). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose potential failure modes, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a successful connection check. It is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant or verbose language. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's basic function but could be improved by mentioning the expected return value (e.g., success/failure message).

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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not add parameter information beyond the schema. With zero parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, as no extra parameter semantics are needed.

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 the tool's purpose: checking if the Moxie MCP server is properly configured and can connect to the Moxie API. The verb 'check' and the specific resource 'Moxie MCP server configuration and API connectivity' differentiate it from sibling tools that perform actions on clients, projects, invoices, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given that it is a health check, usage is implied for verifying server status before other operations. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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