health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses output includes server status, project info, and capabilities, and implies read-only behavior. It does not mention side effects or destructive actions, which is appropriate for a health check. However, it could be more explicit about the specific fields expected.

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 brief yet comprehensive, with a clear multi-line structure and a numbered workflow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 health check tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the output and provides workflow context. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. The description correctly does not need to add parameter info, as there are none.

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 'Check server status and project state' as the tool's purpose. It uses specific verb-resource pair 'check health' and distinguishes from sibling tools that are analysis or refactoring operations.

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 explicitly says 'Call on startup to verify server is operational' and provides a workflow suggesting to call health_check first, then load_project if no project is loaded, and use returned capabilities. This gives clear when-to-use and an actionable sequence.

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