mcp-scholar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns service status information, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or describe other traits like error handling, response format details, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the purpose in the first sentence and follows with return information. There's no wasted text, and every sentence earns its place. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the return statement more clearly, but it remains efficient overall.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose and return type, which is adequate for a simple health check tool. However, it lacks details on what '服务状态信息' (service status information) entails, such as possible values or error cases, making it somewhat incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, 0 parameters baseline is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't contradict or add unnecessary details.

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: '健康检查端点，用于验证服务是否正常运行' (health check endpoint to verify if the service is running normally). It uses a specific verb ('验证' - verify) and resource ('服务' - service), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, which are all unrelated to health checks, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation but doesn't explicitly state this uniqueness.

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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. Since sibling tools are unrelated (e.g., adaptive_search, paper_detail), there's no explicit comparison or when-not-to-use advice, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.

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