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 covers the auth requirement and outlines the return contents: server code, message, and health data. This is adequate for a simple, non-mutating health check, though it does not describe possible error or failure modes.

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 short sentences deliver all essential information with no waste. The main action is front-loaded, and the auth requirement plus return data are stated efficiently.

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 0-parameter health check with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains purpose, auth needs, and return contents without requiring further elaboration.

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. There is no parameter information needed in the description, and the schema correctly reflects an empty parameter set.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the PocketBase API health status'. It also distinguishes itself from the many mutation/admin tools in the sibling list by signaling this is a read-only diagnostic operation.

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 provides useful usage context by explicitly stating 'Does not require authentication', which helps an agent know this tool can be called without credentials. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but for a 0-parameter health check this is acceptable.

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