pup_healthcheck

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

With only readOnlyHint provided by annotations, the description carries the rest and does so richly: it enumerates the exact error.kind values (no_credential, credential_rejected, verification_pending, edge_blocked, timeout, transport, http) and explains the causal distinction (edge_blocked means credentials were never judged). It also discloses a security trait — credentials are never returned.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return contents and the failure taxonomy. The em-dash enumeration is dense but each element is load-bearing; the only minor cost is that it reads as one long sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: server version, visible students, and the error.kind taxonomy for failures. Nothing an agent needs to interpret a result is absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. No parameter detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource: verify credentials sign in and the API answers. It is clearly distinguishable from the data-fetching siblings (pup_list_students, pup_get_session, etc.) because its purpose is a connectivity/credential diagnostic rather than data retrieval.

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 failure-mode taxonomy implies this is a diagnostic to run when something is broken, but the description never states when to call it versus siblings or as a prerequisite step. Usage is implied rather than explicit, so it lands at minimum-viable.

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