Server check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'verifies if the server is working' without specifying what the response looks like (e.g., a status field, a boolean, an error-free execution), or whether there are any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that an agent must interpret.

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, tightly worded sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no filler. For a tool with no parameters, this is appropriately sized.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what an agent can expect from a call. It only states the check occurs but does not describe the return value, possible error conditions, or how to interpret the result. This is incomplete for a tool that an agent would call and need to act on.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema has 100% coverage (no params to describe). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning.

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 states a clear verb ('Verifica' / checks) and a specific resource (the MCP server), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is also clearly distinct from the sibling tools (which are all document-related), so an agent can tell it apart without extra context.

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 it is for checking server health, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Since the siblings are unrelated, there is no confusion, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative naming is provided.

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