runprompt__healthz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool checks python3 availability and returns a JSON version, which gives useful insight into behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or whether there are side effects, though 'Check whether' suggests non-destructive. It also does not mention error handling or exit behavior.

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 concise and well-structured, with the primary purpose stated in the first sentence, followed by a @remarks line with key behavioral details and a @param line for the parameter. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple healthz tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states what is checked, what is returned, and the parameter semantics. It does not describe failure modes or exit codes, but for a health check this may be acceptable. The sibling healthz tools are distinguished by the 'runprompt' bundle reference.

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 schema has a single parameter with an enum but no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explicitly explaining the `__mcp_response_mode` parameter, its allowed values, and its default, which aligns with the schema but adds clarity for an agent.

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 identifies the resource as 'runprompt bundle runtime prerequisites', which clearly distinguishes it from other tools. It further specifies that it verifies python3 availability and returns the version in JSON, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides clear context by stating that this tool checks runtime prerequisites, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the bundle name 'runprompt' differentiates it from sibling healthz tools.

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