health-check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'check health and connectivity' but does not specify what the tool does beyond that—e.g., what specific checks are performed, what the response looks like, or whether it is safe/read-only. This leaves ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. Every part is informative. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It fails to explain what the health check returns (e.g., a status object, error messages) or any side effects (none expected). A more complete description would include this information.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage (empty). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the tool's purpose. For a parameterless tool, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description is sufficient though minimal.

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 is clear and specific: 'Check the health and connectivity of the Shortcut MCP server'. It uses a distinct verb ('check') and resource ('health and connectivity'), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools which all deal with specific data entities like stories, epics, 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?

The description implies usage for verifying server status, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, timing, or distinction from other tools beyond the obvious functional difference.

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