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 burden. It mentions 'quick' implying non-destructive and fast, but does not explicitly state whether it modifies state, required permissions, or side effects. The behavioral traits are insufficiently disclosed.

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 sentence, short and to the point. It front-loads the action and output. However, it could benefit from structuring details (e.g., parameters) for clarity.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks context about what 'smoke flow' entails, what the output status summary covers, and how parameters affect behavior. Completeness is low for a tool with optional parameters and no parameter explanations.

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 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for the two parameters (root_dir, table). The defaults are present but not explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a verb (Run) and resource (MCP smoke flow) with an outcome (summarize status). It distinguishes from sibling tools as the only health_check. However, 'MCP smoke flow' is domain-specific and may be unclear to an AI agent not familiar with the system.

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 information on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. For a diagnostic tool, guidance on when to invoke it is lacking.

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