OJS status check

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

Without annotations, the description reliably conveys that the tool performs read-only checks (health check). However, it doesn't detail behavioral traits like error handling, response structure, or any potential side effects. It adds minimal value beyond the purpose.

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, clear, and complete sentence. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope. No extraneous information.

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 output schema, the description lists what checks are performed but does not describe return values or error scenarios. It suffices for a simple health check but could be improved with output details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (domain: 'OJS subdomain', docroot: 'Override docroot path').

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 explicitly states the tool performs a health check of an OJS site, listing specific checks (homepage HTTP code, config file existence, base_url/allowed_hosts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like site_status and other OJS commands.

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?

The description indicates a 'quick health check' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like site_status or other OJS tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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