Check All Projects Health

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the scope (across all projects) but omits potential issues like partial failures or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence with 14 words, front-loaded with key action, no extraneous information.

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?

Adequate for a simple health check tool, but missing details about output format and the timeout parameter's role. No output schema exists to compensate.

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 schema has one parameter (timeout_ms) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it, failing to provide guidance on usage or impact.

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 it checks both MCP server health and Azure DevOps pipeline status across all projects, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_pipeline_status (single pipeline) and check_server (single server).

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 use for a comprehensive health overview but does not explicitly clarify when to prefer this tool over siblings like check_all or get_monitor_stats. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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