health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only status check (no mutation implied) and adds a timing context ('before any Azure-dependent tools exist') that is useful. It doesn't explicitly state 'no side effects' or failure behavior, but the output schema likely covers those details. The added context is valuable and goes beyond the tool's name.

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 concise: two short sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. No filler or repetition, every sentence earned its place.

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 with an output schema present, the description fully covers purpose and usage. It tells the agent exactly when to call it and why, and the output schema handles return details. Nothing critical is missing.

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 is trivially fully described (empty object). Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description needs no parameter information since none exist.

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 ('Report') and a clear resource ('MCP server is up and configuration loaded correctly'). It is obviously distinct from the sibling Azure tools (factories, pipelines, triggers), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'first call from any MCP client (VS Code, Claude Code) to confirm the server started, before any Azure-dependent tools exist.' This gives clear context and implicitly advises against using it after other tools, making its role in the workflow obvious.

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