health_check

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

The description adds that the tool returns 'ok/error status', which is not present in the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. This is useful behavioral information. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. Every word earns its place. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 simple health check tool, the description and annotations fully cover its behavior. It explains the purpose, the conditions checked, and the response format. No gaps.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by specifying the return format (ok/error status), which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 verb 'check' and the specific resources: Canvas API reachability and token validity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all CRUD operations, by being a diagnostic tool.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is provided, the context of sibling tools makes it obvious that this is a health check. The description implies usage for verifying connectivity and authentication, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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