health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'minimal' and 'deterministic,' implying a safe, side-effect-free read operation. It could add more about output shape, but the existence of an output schema reduces that burden.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste. The primary action ('Return basic server health and metadata') is front-loaded, and the secondary sentence adds useful context without repeating the tool name or schema.

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 simple, parameterless health-check tool with an output schema, the description gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke it correctly. It clearly defines the tool's role and expected behavioral characteristics.

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 effectively complete, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description is appropriately silent on 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('basic server health and metadata'), immediately distinguishing it from computation, user-profile, and failure-testing siblings. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states its intended context: verifying that a client can connect, initialize, and invoke the server successfully. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with other tools.

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