check_gateway_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the checks are lightweight and diagnostic, implying read-only behavior, but does not describe network access, side effects, failure modes, or what 'doctor checks' entail. This is minimal but plausible transparency for a health-check tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word ('lightweight', 'gateway health', 'MCP doctor checks') contributes to the core purpose.

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 zero-parameter schema, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool, but it lacks contextual guidance on what the health results mean, whether this overlaps with siblings, and what kind of output to expect. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers 100% of them, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate.

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 names a specific action ('Run') and resource ('gateway health and MCP doctor checks'), so an agent understands the tool's focus. It does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like get_server_health or probe_registered_mcps, but the gateway/doctor wording narrows the scope sufficiently.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_server_health or probe_registered_mcps. The adjective 'lightweight' hints at a quick check, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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