health

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

The description discloses that the operation is a read-only check and explicitly outlines the return value ('Connection status and Anki version info'). This adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as what information the tool provides, although it does not detail error handling or connection timeout behavior.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then states the return value, with no filler or redundant text.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it checks and what it returns. There are no gaps in information.

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, and the schema already reflects that with an empty properties object. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no unnecessary clutter.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('AnkiConnect reachable') plus an additional action ('get Anki version'). It distinguishes this health-check tool from sibling tools like add_notes or sync, which perform different operations.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases (e.g., verifying connectivity before other API calls) or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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