Get Health Report (Markdown)

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

The description adds context about output format (Markdown) and intended use beyond the readOnly and destructive annotations. However, it does not disclose the effect of the 'hours' parameter on the report's time window, nor any underlying behavior like network calls or caching.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, scope, output format, and intended use without any redundant words. Every phrase earns 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the output format and target resources, but omits the time-range parameter completely. This is a notable gap, though the overall tool is fairly simple.

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 sole parameter 'hours' is not mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type/default/min/max, leaving the agent to infer how the parameter affects the report.

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 retrieves a human-readable Markdown health report covering MCP servers, GitHub Actions workflows, GitLab pipelines, and HTTP targets. The verb 'Get' and specific resource scope distinguish it from sibling check/report tools, and 'Markdown' adds further differentiation.

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 usage for obtaining an aggregate, human-readable report across multiple monitored resource types, and notes it can be pasted into chat or docs. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection among granular check tools.

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