Mooring

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior through 'Return,' but omits auth requirements, caching behavior, or what constitutes 'status' (binary up/down vs detailed metrics). Minimal but adequate for a simple health endpoint.

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?

Extremely efficient: two words convey the complete operation. No redundancy, no wasted sentences. Appropriate for a parameterless health check endpoint.

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 simplicity (no inputs, output schema exists), the description is sufficient. The output schema handles return value documentation. Minor gap: 'status' could be clarified (health state vs general metadata).

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?

Zero parameters exist, warranting the baseline score of 4 per rubric guidelines. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, matching the empty schema.

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 specific verbs ('Return') and identifies the resource ('server version and status'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the scope is clearly distinct from the git-centric tools (gh_actions, repo_blame, etc.), making its purpose obvious in context.

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?

No guidance provided on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. For a health check, explicit guidance about using it for connectivity verification or pre-flight checks would be helpful, but is absent.

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