Gateway self-check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations do not: this is a diagnostic/introspection call that reveals configuration and load state, and that it is the correct first step in a missing-tool investigation. It does not discuss cost or failure modes, but the read-only nature makes those minor.

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 sentences, zero waste. The enumerated outputs come first, then the diagnostic guidance, so the agent gets the gist immediately. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still names the salient fields. A parameterless, closed-world, read-only diagnostic tool is fully specified here; nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call takes no arguments, matching the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Self-check of this gateway process') and enumerates exactly what it reports: version, config path, servers configured, tools indexed, uptime. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mcptoon_manifest and mcptoon_servers, which expose registry contents rather than process health.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Read this first when a tool you expect is missing') and names the diagnostic distinction it resolves (empty config vs. server that failed to load). The condition for choosing this tool over any sibling is unambiguous.

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