health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a verification (read-only operation) and specifies the information returned. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a health check this is adequate. It adds value by describing the return payload and the recommended usage timing, though it could be more explicit about non-destructiveness.

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: three short sentences in Spanish. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists the key return elements, and the third gives usage timing. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

For a health-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. There is no missing information needed for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it correctly, and no complexity requires further elaboration.

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, and the schema is empty. According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and the description's focus on the tool's purpose and return values is sufficient.

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: 'Verifica que el MCP este operativo' (verifies that the MCP is operational). It specifies the verb 'verify' and the resource 'MCP', and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all case-processing actions, by focusing on server health.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Usala al inicio de cada sesion' (use it at the beginning of each session). This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, and the description of returned data (version, articles, graph nodes, communities) implies it is for checking system state, distinguishing it from sibling tools that process cases.

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