health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says what the tool checks, not what it returns, whether it has side effects, or what 'configured' means. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. Every word is relevant, with no wasted content.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter health check, but without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at the return value or success criteria. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what a healthy response looks like. Still, given the minimal complexity, it is not severely incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none 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 a specific action ('Check') and resource ('Shopify GraphQL MCP server'), with the scope 'running and configured'. This unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools.

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 implies the tool is used to verify server status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before other operations) or mention any alternatives. Without exclusions or suggested contexts, it falls at the implied-usage level.

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