Runtime health check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds substantive behavioral context the annotations lack: event categories, per-category capacity, eviction counts, and the oldest retained event — i.e., that results are bounded by a retention window. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the returned content, the second states the use case. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the title. Slightly list-heavy in the first sentence but still 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value explanation — and it does, detailing connection/session state, per-category event counts, capacity, evictions, and the retention window. Combined with read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly; only sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no undocumented inputs to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('report connection health, current debugging session, reconnection state, runtime event counts, retention window') and enumerates the reported fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like runtime_health or diagnose_runtime, which is the main clarity gap.

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?

It gives a positive use case ('confirm the MCP is receiving live data', 'know how far back the evidence goes'), which is real guidance. But it names no alternative and no exclusion condition, leaving the agent to guess when runtime_status is preferable to runtime_health or diagnose_runtime in the sibling list.

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