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. It discloses a key behavioral trait: pinging NVD without rate limiting. It also lists what the tool checks (connectivity, KEV status, cache stats). There are no contradictions and the behavior is well communicated for a health check tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first clearly states the purpose and the second provides a critical usage warning. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present (as per context signals), the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool checks and a critical usage constraint. It does not detail return values, but that is delegated to the output schema.

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 baseline is 4 per calibration guidelines. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Schema coverage is 100% trivially.

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 health of the CVE MCP server, specifying three aspects: NVD connectivity, KEV catalog status, and cache statistics. It uses a specific verb 'check' and resource, and is clearly distinguished from sibling tools which focus on specific CVEs, exploits, or security checks.

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 includes an explicit usage warning: 'do not call it in a loop' due to no rate limiting. This provides clear guidance on when not to use it. While it does not explicitly state when to use it, the context of checking server health is implied. No alternatives are given, but siblings are unrelated.

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