jactus_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully explains behavior: it checks installation, docs accessibility, and contract registration, returning a status classification. It does not mention destructive actions or auth needs, which is acceptable for a read-only health check.

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 concise with a clear first sentence and a brief list of checks. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary detail, though it could use slightly more structured formatting.

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 has no input parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the return values and the scope of checks. It is complete for a simple health check 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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool checks and the return structure, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 verifies that MCP server and JACTUS are working correctly, listing specific checks (installation, docs, contracts). This is a distinct purpose from sibling tools which focus on contracts, events, risk, etc.

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 health verification, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. However, the context makes it clear, and no sibling tool serves the same purpose.

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