evite_healthcheck

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds 'resolved auth mode' as a specific detail, but it does not disclose what 'status' encompasses, whether it makes network calls, how auth mode is resolved, or what the output format looks like. 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, read-only), but without an output schema, the description could be more complete. It leaves ambiguity about what 'status' includes and what possible 'resolved auth mode' values might be. Still, it provides enough context for an agent to select the tool for a healthcheck purpose.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description confirms that the tool requires no input, which is consistent with an empty schema. It adds no parameter-level details because there are none to add.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('evite-mcp status and the resolved auth mode'). It unambiguously identifies this as a healthcheck/diagnostic tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage events, guests, and messages.

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 implies the tool is for checking status and auth mode, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools. It lacks guidance on typical use cases like pre-flight checks or troubleshooting, and does not mention alternatives.

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