zim_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the exact returned sections, how readable:false flags failing archives, that Archive.check() runs for the path mode, and what validation fields are reported. It also reveals the intentional consolidation of legacy endpoints, which is useful context beyond the bare schema.

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 long but precisely organized into summary, mode details, aliases, parameters, and response shape. Every section supplies information the agent needs and would not otherwise have, and the main verb/resource is front-loaded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it defines both call modes, names the optional parameter's effect, enumerates the response fields for each mode, and adds failure-related nuance (readable:false). An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without inspecting schemas.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter, and it does. It explains that zim_file_path is optional, that omitting it selects server-state mode, and that passing it switches to one-archive validation, giving the parameter meaning the schema entirely 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') and clearly differentiates the tool from all content-access siblings by focusing on server health, configuration, and archive validation. The two distinct modes are unambiguous, and the aliases reinforce the intended query language.

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 conditions for when to call with no argument versus with zim_file_path, and even explains what question each mode answers. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the sibling tools are clearly content-oriented and the modality here is distinct, so the missing exclusion is minor.

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