health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, or what specific 'configuration info' is returned. The mention of return format is helpful but insufficient for a mutation-free tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose, one describing the return format. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The second sentence about returns could potentially be omitted since there's an output schema, but it's still useful context.

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 this is a simple health check tool with 0 parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but doesn't provide context about when to use it or behavioral considerations. With output schema handling return values, the description doesn't need to explain those details.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description correctly indicates this is a parameterless health check, which aligns perfectly with the empty input schema. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.

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 verb ('Check') and resource ('health status of the MCP server'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_item' or 'list_items', but health checking is sufficiently distinct from CRUD operations that differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 this should be used for health monitoring rather than data operations, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools are all CRUD operations for 'item', the context suggests this is for server diagnostics rather than data manipulation, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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