health

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 states the tool returns 'version and status', which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not specify details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the exact format of the returned data. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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, simple purpose) and the presence of an output schema (which should detail the return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality but lacks context on usage scenarios or behavioral nuances. With annotations absent, it could benefit from more detail on operational aspects, but it suffices for a basic health check tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not add parameter-specific information, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given as the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies no inputs are required for a health check.

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 as performing a 'server health check' that returns 'version and status'. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'returns') and identifies the resource ('server'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like db_active_queries or safety_get_mode, which might also provide status information.

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 does not mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., during troubleshooting or monitoring), or comparisons to sibling tools that might offer overlapping functionality, such as db_connect for database status or safety_get_mode for system safety status.

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