health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a dictionary with status and server information, which is helpful, but doesn't cover other important aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what specific status codes or information might be included. The description is minimal and lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second briefly notes the return format. There is no wasted text, and every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and return format, but with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, typical use cases). The output schema existence reduces the need to detail return values, but overall completeness is just sufficient.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids discussing parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.

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's purpose: 'Health check endpoint that verifies the server is running.' It uses specific verbs ('verifies') and identifies the resource ('server'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'ping' or 'get_connection_status' which might serve similar diagnostic functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ping' or 'get_connection_status' from the sibling list. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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