mcp_health_report

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 diagnostic components but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or output format. While it implies a read-only operation ('Return'), it doesn't confirm safety or describe potential impacts, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 12 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates key components without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It outlines the diagnostic scope but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, or integration with siblings. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't address operational context or error handling, leaving room for improvement.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists diagnostic components (e.g., tool exposure, docs alignment) that map to some parameters (like includeToolNames, includeDocChecks), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't cover all 12 parameters (e.g., referenceDocPath, examplesDocPath) or explain their relationships, providing partial but incomplete semantic 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 with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('MCP server/runtime health diagnostics'), listing the diagnostic components (tool exposure, docs alignment, contract snapshot, managed artifact status). It distinguishes from most sibling tools focused on analysis, generation, or project management, though not explicitly contrasting with any specific health-related alternative.

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, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. It merely states what the tool does without indicating context like troubleshooting, monitoring, or setup verification, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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