Server Health

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 states it 'Returns runtime readiness' which implies a read-only operation, but does not clarify what readiness includes (e.g., dependencies, latency) or any potential side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 parameterless health-check tool, the description is largely complete for invocation purposes. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., boolean, status object) since no output schema exists, which is a minor gap for a tool that could report richer state. Overall, it is sufficient for a simple health check.

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 the schema explicitly documents this with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, matching the baseline for 0-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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and a clear resource ('runtime readiness for the Canva MCP server'), which unambiguously communicates the tool's function. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools that perform editing, creation, or export operations.

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 implies the tool is used to check server readiness but does not explicitly state when to use it, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Given the trivial nature and lack of sibling health-check tools, this is acceptable but not explicit.

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