kitty_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool checks CLI and subsystems but does not mention side effects, destructiveness, or other behaviors (e.g., network calls, output format). It adequately describes purpose but lacks depth on non-obvious effects.

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 two sentences that front-load the core action. Only necessary information is included, with no redundancy or wasted 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and verification scope. It is complete for a simple health check tool, leaving no major gaps for an AI agent to understand its use.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes inputs. Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and none is provided.

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 action ('Perform a health check') and the resource ('kitty MCP server'). It further specifies what is verified (CLI accessibility and subsystem operational status), making it distinct from sibling tools which focus on specific actions like sending keys or managing tabs.

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 implies usage for server health verification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for when health checks are appropriate are provided.

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