zim_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: it describes health checks, configuration fields, loaded_archives, the meaning of readable:false, and the validation behavior including Archive.check() and the returned fields. No contradiction 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?

The description is longer than average but well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded information. Most sentences add value, especially the response field enumeration, which is necessary because no output schema exists. Minor redundancy exists around the omit/pass guidance, but it is not wasteful.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoughtfully includes the full response shapes for both invocation modes. The single optional parameter is fully explained, and the tool's behavior is covered for both branches. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 input schema provides no property descriptions, so schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining that zim_file_path is optional, what omitting it does, and what passing it does. This is exactly the semantic guidance the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect the openzim-mcp server's state — or validate one archive — in one call.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from the content-access siblings by positioning it as a health/state/validation tool rather than a content-retrieval 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?

The description gives explicit usage conditions: no argument for server state, a zim_file_path for validating one archive. It also supplies helpful aliases. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like zim_search or zim_get, but the behavioral split is clear enough.

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