server_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It accurately discloses what is reported and is consistent with a read-only health check, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, safe, or free of side effects. Adequate but not deep.

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 exactly two sentences with no redundant phrases. It front-loads the tool's report contents and then gives a clear usage directive. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what information is reported and when to use it. It doesn't describe the output format in detail, but the listed report items suffice for a diagnostic tool.

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 schema is empty and coverage is 100%. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description appropriately adds nothing. Baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 the specific verb 'Report' and lists three concrete data categories (current mode, configured credentials, callback receiver status), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling transaction and business operation tools.

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 phrase 'Start here when something is not working' provides explicit when-to-use guidance, positioning this as the first diagnostic step. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the directive is clear and actionable.

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