ass__healthz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool validates ffmpeg presence and returns a small JSON health report, which gives a good sense of behavior. It does not discuss errors or side effects, but for a health check this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the @remarks/@param annotations are compact. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple schema (one optional param) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and return type (JSON health report). It could specify the exact fields of the report, but for a health check the level of detail is 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 description includes a @param line that explains the __mcp_response_mode parameter as optional, with default 'content' and alternative 'structuredContent'. This adds human-readable meaning beyond the raw schema, which has no property descriptions. The meaning fully covers the single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('ASS tool bundle runtime dependencies'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling healthz tools by explicitly scoping to the ASS bundle and mentioning ffmpeg presence validation.

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 clearly states that this tool checks ASS runtime dependencies, providing context for when it applies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use ffmpeg__healthz for ffmpeg-specific checks), so it lacks full cross-tool guidance.

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