health_check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the side-effect that 'it starts PreFormServer if needed.' This is genuinely useful behavioral context (potential startup cost/latency, process launch) not captured by the annotations, and it does not contradict them.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the supplementary behavioral note about starting the server earns its place. Nothing extraneous.

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 zero-parameter tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description is nearly complete: it states the return value (version) and the reachability check. It lacks an explicit return format and does not address the overlapping preform_status sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline for parameter-free tools, a 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the PreFormServer version' and 'confirm the server is reachable.' The purpose is unambiguous and actionable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'preform_status,' which appears to overlap in purpose, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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 gives explicit temporal guidance — 'Call this first to confirm the server is reachable' — which tells the agent when to invoke it. But it never names alternatives like preform_status or states when NOT to use this tool, leaving the sibling distinction unresolved.

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