health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The description implies a read-only check, especially via 'expanded read-only evidence', but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or whether standard mode is also read-only. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides key usage guidance on the parameter. Front-loaded and 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?

The description does not specify the return value or output structure, which is critical for a health check tool. With no output schema, the agent lacks information on what the result will contain. Given many sibling diagnostic tools, more context on when to use this tool is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the self_diagnostic parameter usage for 'expanded read-only evidence', which goes beyond the schema's enum listing.

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 checks MCP catalog consistency, watcher freshness/supervisor state, workspace readiness, and configured agents. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_agents or release_check.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as safe_audit or release_check. It only suggests using detail=self_diagnostic for expanded evidence, but lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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