RMS MCP health check

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 clearly indicates this is a non-mutating diagnostic check, and the wording 'can start' and 'credentials are present' accurately conveys the scope. However, it does not describe the output format or what happens if the check fails, which is a minor gap.

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 sentence that conveys all necessary information with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity, zero parameters, and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects for invocation: what the tool checks and why. It would be slightly stronger if it hinted at the return value, but the description is complete enough for an agent to select and call this tool appropriately.

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 coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the empty schema fully describes the interface and the description appropriately focuses on behavior.

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 clearly states the tool checks server startup and credential presence, using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('MCP server', 'RMS credentials'). This fully distinguishes it from the functional sibling tools like rms_product_ranking or rms_order_detail, which perform domain operations rather than health diagnostics.

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 usage context (verifying the server is operational and credentials exist), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or follow-up actions. It gives enough context for a health check but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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