prufa_health_check

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description clearly states it is always free and requires no token, indicating no authentication or cost. The term 'probe' suggests a simple, non-destructive read operation. This adds behavioral context beyond the empty 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?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds key behavioral info. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and behavioral traits (free, no token needed). It is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds value by explaining the tool is a free, tokenless health check, which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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 probes the Prufa API and MCP server, which is a health check. This is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on specific operations like auth, billing, flows, monitors, etc. The verb 'probe' and the resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 this is a health check, free and requiring no token, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use. No alternatives are mentioned, but among siblings there is no other health check tool, so the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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