M.Video MCP health

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses two key behavior traits: it does not call M.Video (read-only/safe) and never returns the API key (privacy). This is valuable beyond the schema, though it doesn't specify the exact return format or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key safety distinctions. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or irrelevant detail. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple health tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and safety guarantees. It could slightly elaborate on the intended use (e.g., 'use to verify connectivity' ) but remains sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so parameter documentation is not needed. The description adds context about the output (sanitized configuration) and safety constraints, providing value beyond the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 specific action ('Return') and resource ('sanitized MCP/API configuration'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the operational sibling tools by noting it does not call M.Video. This makes it unambiguous as a health/config check rather than a data operation.

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?

It implies usage for checking configuration/health and highlights safety (no external call, no API key), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Since all siblings are operational tools, context implies this is the health-check tool, but explicit guidance is absent.

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