debug_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects or behavior. The phrase 'test tool to check if MCP server is working' is vague and does not specify whether it performs any writes, makes network calls, or returns a simple status. This lack of detail fails to accurately convey the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It is well-structured and easy to read, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

While the description is adequate for a simple diagnostic tool, it lacks context about what 'working' means or what the expected output is (e.g., a success message or a boolean). The existence of an output schema is noted but not detailed, so an agent might not fully understand what to expect from invoking this tool.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe and the description does not need to explain any.

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's purpose as a test to check if the MCP server is working, using the verb 'check' and resource 'MCP server'. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on wiki or synapse operations, so it is easily differentiated. However, it is somewhat generic about what 'working' entails.

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 usage as a diagnostic tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools. Since all sibling tools have different domains, no direct alternative is obvious, but the absence of explicit usage scenarios leaves some ambiguity.

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