health

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the read-only/destructive annotations by explaining that this is a diagnostics-only tool reporting status and configuration states. It does not state any side effects or requirements, but with readOnlyHint=true and no parameters, nothing more is strictly necessary.

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 compact, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and wastes no words. The first sentence enumerates specific status items, and the second sentence gives a clean usage directive.

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 read-only health check with a provided output schema, the description provides everything needed: the exact data points reported and the situations in which to call it. No important context 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema burden at all. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is appropriately met.

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 states a specific verb ('Reports') and defines the resource scope: Qdrant connectivity, embedding model, reranker status, server version, and active transport. This makes it clear what the tool does and how it differs from other health-adjacent tools in the sibling list.

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 says when to use the tool: first when something seems broken, or to confirm the server is reachable and correctly configured. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent.

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