health

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 signals a read-only operation, which is valuable safety context. However, it does not describe what 'health' covers, whether it contacts live backends, or how results are returned; the output schema partially compensates.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. The most important information — that this is a read-only health snapshot covering the MCP and its backends — is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 health check, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the tool's purpose, scope, and read-only nature. The presence of an output schema covers return value details, so 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, so the input schema is already complete. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics are missing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('read-only health snapshot for this MCP and its backends'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_index_status or get_job_status by framing it as a general health check across the MCP and its backends.

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 read-only health snapshot phrasing implies it is for checking system health, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternative status/config tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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