TOCA Core Health

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 well covered. The description adds the behavioral trait 'deterministic' and scopes the read to 'surface and persistence readiness' metadata, but it does not disclose output structure or failure semantics; this is acceptable but not rich.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence beginning with the verb 'Return'. It wastes no words and is appropriately compact for a zero-parameter health metadata tool.

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?

Complexity is low: no parameters, no side effects, and annotations cover safety. The description states the output is deterministic metadata around MCP surface and persistence readiness, though it leaves the exact fields of that metadata unspecified; this is still likely sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool.

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 accepts zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete. With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter detail, so the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 opens with 'Return', specifying that the tool produces deterministic metadata about 'TOCA Core MCP surface and persistence readiness'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capabilities.search or workflow.get, though the jargon 'MCP surface' makes it somewhat less accessible.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to call this tool versus alternatives. The name 'health' and the word 'readiness' weakly imply a system-status or pre-flight use case, but there is no concrete when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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