mp_health

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by detailing that self is marked is_self=true and never orphaned, plus explains the orphan classification logic. It does not contradict annotations but could mention output format details already covered by output schema.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: states purpose, lists output fields, explains special self behavior. No redundancies or fluff.

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?

With no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context: input (none), output (fields and legacy block), and behavioral nuance (self handling). Complete for a read-only 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?

No parameters exist (0 params), so baseline is 4. The description correctly provides no parameter info, and schema coverage is 100% from the empty schema.

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 returns a 'diagnostic snapshot of every running thread-keeper server process', specifying the verb 'snapshot' and resource. It lists detailed output fields (pid, parent status, RSS, heartbeat age, orphan classification), distinguishing it from sibling diagnostic tools like live_status or mp_dashboard.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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