get_server_health

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

The description explicitly states it is read-only and redaction-safe, reporting only counts and status without exposing secrets. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, clarifying what the tool does and does not reveal.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool returns, the second confirms safety/read-only behavior, and the third gives a concrete use case. No redundant or filler content.

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?

With no parameters, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly. It also positions the tool within a broader workflow.

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, so the description need not explain parameter behavior. It still usefully indicates what information is reported, which is the relevant semantic content for this operation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return redaction-safe UniFi MCP runtime health and service counts.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling health tools like get_site_health and get_network_health by focusing on the MCP runtime, registered tool counts, data sources, and plugin status.

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?

It provides a clear use context: 'Use to confirm the server and its sources are healthy before issuing deeper queries.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases.

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