md_pipeline_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It states it only checks tools and does not run a simulation, implying a non-destructive read-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose what specific checks are performed, any auth requirements, or the structure of the health report, so transparency is limited.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action 'Check', and every word contributes meaningful information. There is no redundancy or wasted 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it doesn't explain what 'health check' entails, how the optional parameter affects behavior, or what 'conversion and packing tools' specifically refer to. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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 schema has one boolean parameter, 'run_version_probes', with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what 'version probes' means and how it affects the health check. This is a clear gap that the description should compensate for.

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 checks a specific set of tools (MS, LAMMPS, MPI, VMD, conversion, packing) and explicitly notes it does not run a simulation. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from simulation-running sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'without running a simulation' implies this is a pre-simulation diagnostic, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives like ms_detect_installation or ms_moc_get_status. Usage guidance is only implied, not explicitly stated.

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