Iconsult MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns (database connection status, graph statistics, pipeline status) and its diagnostic purpose. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states what the tool does and returns, while the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted 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?

Given the tool's diagnostic nature, 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what information is returned and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of output format details, but for a health check tool, the described return categories are reasonably sufficient.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty input. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('check', 'returns') and resources ('server health', 'graph scope', 'database connection status', 'graph statistics', 'pipeline status'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on system diagnostics rather than knowledge graph operations like 'list_concepts' or 'get_subgraph'.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Call this first to understand how large the knowledge graph is and whether the database is reachable.' This provides clear guidance on its initial diagnostic role versus alternatives like data retrieval or analysis tools among siblings.

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