Inspect server health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — that secrets are withheld — plus the hint that some dependencies are optional and may be absent. It says nothing about failure modes or what a degraded result looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The security-relevant qualifier ('without exposing secrets') is placed where it will be read first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and with zero parameters the schema burden is nil. The description covers scope and the secret-safety guarantee, leaving only the question of what 'health' comprises — minor given the output schema carries the field detail.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% on an empty object, so nothing is missing.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('safe configuration and optional dependency status'), which is enough for an agent to know this surfaces the server's own health rather than scanning a target. It is distinguishable from the scan-oriented siblings by subject matter, though it never explicitly says whose server or why this differs from an assessment_summary.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as assessment_summary, nor any precondition or trigger described. The agent must infer that this is a diagnostic/introspection call rather than a security test.

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