get_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning health but does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects (if any) exist, what constitutes 'health,' or how the result is structured. The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior beyond the one-line summary.

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, compact sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is highly concise and front-loaded, which is appropriate for a simple health-check tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, because there is no output schema, the description should explain what 'health' includes (e.g., bridge connectivity, session token validity) to give the agent a complete picture. The description is complete in scope but lacks this important detail, making it only passable.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no inputs are required, and there is no need for additional parameter explanations. The input schema confirms an empty object, which is consistent.

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 the tool's purpose: to return SharePoint MCP bridge and session health. This is a specific verb ('Return') plus a distinct resource ('health'), which differentiates it from all sibling tools that focus on lists, items, groups, pages, etc. It is immediately obvious what this tool does.

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. While it is unique among siblings, the description does not state use cases such as 'check connectivity before other operations' or 'diagnose session issues.' There is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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