general_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the tool reports local process health and does not make external calls to Bit2Me, which is valuable behavioral information for an agent deciding whether this tool could be affected by external systems.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and return categories are front-loaded, and the clarifying 'does not call Bit2Me' is placed at the end where it supplements, not obscures, the main message.

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 tool, the description is complete: it lists the key outputs and explicitly notes the tool's local-only scope. No output schema exists, but the summary of fields is enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 the baseline is 4. The description offers a compact overview of the returned health categories, which is sufficient for a parameterless health-check tool.

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 identifies the resource ('local process health of this MCP server') and the specific contents (status, version, uptime, circuit-breaker/cache/rate-limiter stats). It also explicitly differentiates itself from exchange-data tools by stating it does not call Bit2Me.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for server-local operational information, not external market or account data. It provides a when-to-use signal ('local process health') and an exclusion ('Does not call Bit2Me'), though it does not name specific sibling alternatives.

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