pup_healthcheck

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

Given the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description adds meaningful context by specifying what the read actually does: it validates credentials, checks API responsiveness, and reports server version plus visible students. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent a clear expectation of the tool's behavior and output scope. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Verify the configured credentials sign in'), followed by the concrete outputs. Every phrase earns its place.

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, read-only health check with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it and to interpret its results: it reports server version and visible students. The only minor ambiguity is naming the student-report side effect, but the healthcheck framing makes it clear enough.

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 no input schema properties, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns instead.

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 ('Verify') and resource (configured credentials + PickUp Patrol API), and distinguishes this healthcheck tool from data-list siblings like pup_list_students by framing the student report as part of a connectivity check. It also names concrete outputs: server version and visible students.

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 use case is implied: this is the tool to run when you need to confirm credentials work and the API is reachable. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools like pup_get_session or pup_list_students, nor does it state exclusions such as 'use pup_list_students when you only need the student list.'

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