holded_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the call is a read-only style check and returns uptime, so it is not misleading, but it does not disclose behavior such as error responses, failure handling, or whether any server-side state is changed. The basic behavior is transparent but thin.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the verb, the resource, and the returned value in under fifteen words.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides enough to invoke it and interpret the main return value (uptime). It could be more complete by describing the exact status/response format, but nothing about required inputs is missing.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add; the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies. The description mentions uptime, which is the relevant operational output, not a parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Comprueba') and resource ('estado del servidor MCP') and states the return value ('tiempo de actividad'). This clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling data-retrieval tools such as holded_list_accounts or holded_get_document.

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 intended use is implied by 'Comprueba el estado del servidor MCP'—an agent can infer it is for server health checks—but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it or rule out alternatives. No usage exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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