health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the internal mechanism (calling get_document_status_counts), states that failures from that call are allowed to raise, and guarantees 'this tool never reports healthy while authentication is broken.' This is highly transparent about what the tool does under the hood.

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 key behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent explanation of why GET /health is insufficient is valuable context. The historical reference to the 'old lightrag-mcp wrapper's exact trap' is slightly non-essential but still reinforces the tool's purpose without bloating the description.

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 health check with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to know: what it checks, how it works, and what guarantees it provides. The return format is handled by the output schema, so no further explanation is needed.

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 schema provides nothing to document. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters. The baseline 4 applies because no parameter information is needed or missing.

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: 'Check whether LightRAG is reachable AND whether this server's credentials actually work.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the raw GET /health endpoint and from the old wrapper, so an agent can tell exactly what it does and why it differs.

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 explicitly says 'GET /health alone is not enough' and explains why, which tells the agent when not to rely on the simple liveness probe. It also states that this tool calls get_document_status_counts to enforce auth, effectively positioning itself as the proper health check when credentials need verification.

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