health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it acquits itself well: it discloses that it checks API key configuration, echoes the model/endpoint/output directory, performs one free auth probe against OpenRouter, and explicitly guarantees the API key is never returned. The one slightly under-specified item is what the 'auth probe' entails, but overall this is thorough disclosure for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Three compact sentences with the key differentiator (no TTS cost) front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core purpose, the second details what is checked, and the third covers the privacy guarantee. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

For a parameterless diagnostic tool with an output schema (which exempts the description from explaining return values), this is close to complete: it covers what it checks, the free nature of the call, and the safety guarantee. The only minor gap is that it could explicitly frame the 'verify config before rendering' pattern, though the no-TTS-cost phrasing largely implies it.

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 is empty, so the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than arguments — nothing to explain for parameters. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description adds no param details because 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 states a specific verb and resource — "Report MCP configuration status" — and immediately distinguishes it from the speech-generation siblings (preview_voice, render_voiceover, render_long_voiceover) by framing it as a diagnostic operation rather than a generation operation. An agent can tell this is the config/health check at a glance.

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 lead phrase "without spending a TTS request" provides clear context for when to pick this tool — it's the free, non-billable diagnostic — which implicitly contrasts with the rendering siblings that consume TTS. However, it stops short of explicit exclusions or direct routing to an alternative (e.g., it never says 'use render_voiceover when you actually need audio'). The context is clear but the when-not guidance is only implied.

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