health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a diagnostic self-check and returns connection and encryption status, which implies a read-only probe. It does not explicitly say it has no side effects, but the self-check framing makes the behavior sufficiently transparent for a zero-parameter tool.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds the return value and invocation context. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, method, return value, and invocation context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call 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 input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or misleading parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it runs a connection/E2EE self-check equivalent to 'npm run doctor' and returns Matrix connection and encryption status. It also distinguishes this health-check tool from the messaging/approval-oriented sibling tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context by stating it can be invoked during /mcp health checks and is for checking connection/encryption status. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use conditions, but the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so the distinction is implicit.

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