check_health

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

The description contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true by stating the auto_heal parameter attempts to 'fix each unhealthy server automatically,' implying write operations. This is a serious inconsistency, warranting a score of 1 and flagging annotation contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with a clear summary, details, and explicit Args/Returns sections. Brief but informative. Slight room for improvement in trimming redundant phrases (e.g., 'at once' could be implied).

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?

Covers purpose, mechanism, usage guidance, parameters, and return value summary. Given the output schema exists (so return details are not strictly needed) and the complexity of health checking, the description is reasonably complete. Lacks mention of concurrency limits or error handling specifics.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description provides thorough explanations for all three parameters: client options with auto-detection, timeout_seconds clamping and default, auto_heal behavior and its effect on the report. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 it checks health of all configured MCP servers at once, with specific details on how it does so (concurrently, via MCP protocol, calling list_tools). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure_server, test_connection, and verify.

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?

Explicitly states to use after configure_server for verification or as periodic health check. Provides alternative course of action for unhealthy servers (remove_server + configure_server). Clear when-to-use and guidance.

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