Get Health Dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context about the aggregated scope (servers, workflows, pipelines, HTTP targets) and the performance/uptime stats. It does not describe return format or potential heaviness, but for a read-only dashboard with annotations, the added context is meaningful. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, compact sentence of 19 words that front-loads the verb and key content. Every word adds value, listing the covered resources and the type of statistics, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level picture of what the dashboard includes. The main gap is the complete absence of parameter semantics (e.g., how to adjust the time window), which prevents full operational understanding, but the core purpose is well covered.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the parameters 'hours' or 'include_tool_stats' at all. The schema only provides types/defaults, leaving their semantics entirely unstated. The agent cannot infer whether 'hours' is a time range or how 'include_tool_stats' alters the output.

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 ('Get') and clearly states the resource ('dashboard overview') plus the exact coverage ('registered MCP servers, GitHub Actions workflows, GitLab pipelines, and HTTP targets') and the kind of data included ('uptime and performance stats'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools that target individual resources or actions.

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 clear context by positioning this as a broad overview tool, which implicitly contrasts with the more specific sibling tools (e.g., check_server, list_http_targets). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or mention exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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