mcp_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully explains the healthy state condition and reveals what data 'includeDetails' adds (routing/cache stats, redacted errors). However, it lacks details on error handling, caching behavior, or whether the check is synchronous/blocking.

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 efficiently structured with four concise statements: category definition, health criteria, and two parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy, though the opening fragment 'Health/diagnostics.' is slightly isolated from the flowing sentences that follow.

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 2-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral and parameter semantics. However, it should ideally describe what the tool returns (status object, string, etc.) since no output schema exists to document the response structure.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context: 'format=dense gives compact status' maps the enum value to its effect, and 'includeDetails adds...redacted errors' provides specific content information not detailed in the schema's generic 'extended details' description.

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 identifies this as a health/diagnostics tool and defines what constitutes a healthy state ('when any backend is available'). It effectively distinguishes itself from code-analysis siblings by specifying an infrastructure monitoring purpose, though the initial fragment 'Health/diagnostics' is slightly telegraphic.

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 explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions where it should be avoided. While the diagnostic nature makes some usage obvious, there is no specific 'use this when...' instruction.

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