health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable nuance: agent availability is executable-only unless an explicit provider probe is requested, and self_diagnostic provides expanded read-only evidence. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a key caveat and parameter tip. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is checked and how to request expanded evidence. It does not describe return format, but the simple nature and strong annotations reduce the need for more. It could mention typical use cases, but overall it is adequately complete.

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% for the single parameter, with detailed explanation of the self_diagnostic option. The tool description lightly repeats this and adds 'read-only', but does not introduce new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 multiple subsystems (MCP catalog, watcher, supervisor, workspace, agents) with the specific verb 'Check'. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from similar read-only diagnostic siblings like safe_status or diagnose_task.

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 alternatives. The only usage advice is parameter-level ('Use detail=self_diagnostic'), which does not help with tool selection. Sibling tools with overlapping purposes (safe_status, diagnose_task) are not mentioned or distinguished.

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