system.health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing exactly which health components are checked (metrics, cache, initialization, pattern services, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 action, and lists the checks concisely without any redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

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 description explains what the tool checks and mentions 'returns diagnostics' but does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON structure). Since there is no output schema, some guidance on the response structure would be beneficial, but the description is sufficient for understanding the tool's purpose. The seven optional parameters are well-covered in the schema.

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 100% with each parameter having a clear description and defaults. The description provides a high-level grouping of parameters into categories (metrics, cache stats, etc.), which adds some context but does not significantly enhance what the schema already provides for individual parameters.

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 runs a health check on the MCP server, listing specific components checked (metrics, cache stats, initialization, pattern services). It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Run MCP server health check') and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific functionalities like accessibility, design, or search.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which scenarios it is best suited for. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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