health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'test connectivity' but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a health check, stating that it is a safe, read-only operation would be valuable.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no 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?

For a simple health check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it does not hint at the return value (e.g., boolean or status message) or any additional context like typical response time.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of the tool. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets it without redundancy.

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 'Test connectivity to current OpenAPI server' clearly states the verb ('test connectivity') and the resource ('current OpenAPI server'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like execute_request (which performs actual API calls) and get_server_info (which retrieves server metadata).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as before executing requests to verify server availability. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for its use.

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