health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that it returns health, version, and capabilities, but does not state whether it is read-only, safe, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise, using only a few words to convey the core purpose. It lacks verbosity, but it is structured as a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 simplicity of the tool (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient. It names the key outputs but leaves 'capabilities' undefined and does not explain any error behavior or return format, which could leave an agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 there is nothing to explain. The schema with empty properties is fully covered, and the baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 names the resource (server) and the specific aspects covered (health, version, capabilities), which is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling decision tools. However, it lacks a verb and reads as a noun phrase rather than a full statement of action.

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. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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