Get server diagnostics

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 covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is inspected (embedding provider health, index compatibility, path-security configuration, resource limits) and by explicitly stating the operation is non-modifying, which reinforces the read-only behavior beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds the non-modifying guarantee. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 one optional parameter, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could arguably name a sibling alternative for contrast, but the enumerated diagnostic areas and non-modifying clause give an agent enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so the single parameter 'directory' is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 specific verb ('Inspect') and a clear resource ('embedding provider health, index compatibility, path-security configuration, and resource limits'), and explicitly notes it does not modify the project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_index_status or get_server_info by enumerating the diagnostic scope.

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 when to use it: when you need diagnostics across the listed areas without modifying the project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'without modifying the project' clause and the enumerated scope provide clear context for selection among the many sibling tools.

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