hello_infimium

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or if it has side effects. 'Health probe' implies safety but does not explicitly confirm behavior, response format, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 short sentence that conveys the essential purpose without wasted words. For a zero-parameter health probe, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description still omits key context such as the return value (e.g., OK/status), potential errors, and whether any setup is required. It feels incomplete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain regarding parameters, and no schema-description coverage issues exist.

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 identifies the tool as a 'health probe' for the Infimium MCP server, which clearly indicates its purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like web_search or shell, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'checks' or 'returns'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of typical scenarios. The description is purely declarative.

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