server_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists all return fields (Python version, mcp SDK version, core module import status, DB connection active count, OS info) and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. Could mention that it does not modify state.

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, concise Chinese sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key return fields. Every word is informative with no redundancy.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and when to use it. It covers expected return values and use case (smoke testing). No gaps identified.

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 no parameters (schema description coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool returns, which is useful but not parameter-specific.

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 returns server health status with specific fields (Python version, mcp SDK version, core module import status, DB connection active count, OS info). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'server_metrics' which likely focuses on different metrics.

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 explicitly states the tool is used for post-deployment smoke testing (用于部署后冒烟检查), providing clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives, but the tool has no parameters and a straightforward purpose.

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