molt-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It states what gets checked (availability/responding) but omits safety profile (read-only, idempotent), authentication requirements, rate limits, or timeout behavior. Output schema exists, so return value documentation is not required in description.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb. Appropriate length for zero-parameter health check utility.

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?

Low complexity tool (zero parameters, boolean/simple return). Output schema exists to document return values. Description adequately covers the tool's sole purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 per input schema (schema coverage 100%). With no parameters to document, baseline score of 4 applies per rubric ('0 params = baseline 4'). Description correctly implies no arguments needed.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Check' with clear resource 'molt-md API' and scope 'available and responding'. Distinct from all CRUD siblings (create_doc, update_workspace, etc.) and differentiates from get_metrics by focusing on availability rather than performance metrics.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance provided. While the tool's purpose is self-evident from the name, description does not clarify relationship to sibling 'get_metrics' (health vs. metrics) or suggest prerequisite usage (e.g., 'call before operations'). Usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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