netmiko.health_check

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks the MCP server (not devices or inventory), and documents the return fields including special behavior when command_policy is 'fallback' (warning field, suggesting the agent report it). It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects, but for a health-check tool with no destructive potential, these are less critical.

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 well-structured with a brief header, an important usage note, a clear exclusion, and a detailed return format. It is not overly long, but the return section could be slightly more concise (e.g., listing the fields without the 'Returns:' prefix). Overall, it earns its sentences.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which partially covers the return format), the description provides complete context: what the tool checks, what it doesn't check, when to call an alternative first, and the exact return structure with special behavior. This is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema provides full coverage (100%) of the empty parameter set. The description adds no parameter-level details because there are none, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate given the zero-parameter context and the rich return value description that compensates slightly.

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 'whether the Netmiko MCP server itself is responsive and correctly configured.' It distinguishes itself from tools that check network devices or inventory backend reachability by explicitly contrasting with those cases, and provides a language example ('¿Está arriba el router X?') to reinforce the boundary.

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 tells the agent to call netmiko.get_metadata FIRST if the user message involves network devices, and clearly states what this tool is NOT for (network device checks, inventory backend reachability). It also explains when to use alternatives like netmiko.send_show_command, providing explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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