health_check

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

The description lacks details on side effects, whether it modifies anything, or what it returns. Since no annotations are provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it does not mention output format or success/failure indicators, despite an output schema existing.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is somewhat complete for a simple health check. However, it could be improved by mentioning the typical use case (e.g., 'Run this first to ensure the environment is set up') or the form of the output.

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 (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining the purpose, which is appropriate.

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 verifies kd-mcp config and kd.exe path. The verb 'Verify' and the specific resources (config, path) make the purpose unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling tools like break_in, continue_go, etc.

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 like list_sessions or start_kd. The description only states what it does, not under what circumstances or prerequisites.

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