server_health

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

The description discloses that the tool returns versions, but with no annotations, it does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. While the tool appears benign, additional transparency would be beneficial.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous text. Every word contributes meaning, demonstrating excellent conciseness.

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 simple tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies what is returned (server and dependency versions). No further elaboration is necessary given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema covers 100% of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as none exist. The description's mention of return values adds value beyond the parameter schema.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'server and dependency versions', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling validation tools without needing further clarification.

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 usage for checking server health and dependencies, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling names suggest it's the only health-check tool, but a brief note on use cases would improve clarity.

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