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 discloses the return value (server name and version), which is the main behavioral output, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or requires no authentication. For a liveness check this is a minor gap, but still leaves the safety profile implicit.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the return value with zero waste. Every word earns its place, and there is no superfluous 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is completely sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and there are no missing elements required for correct invocation. The simplicity of the tool justifies the brevity.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema adequately covers everything, and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. It correctly avoids content that would be redundant.

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 verb ('Liveness check') and resource (the server), and specifies the return value (server name and version). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like 'status', which implies overall state rather than a dedicated liveness probe.

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 purpose implies usage—call it to verify the server is alive—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor exclusions. For a zero-parameter health check, the implied usage is sufficient, but it falls short of the explicitness seen in top-tier definitions.

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