Health Check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses what is checked (uptime, docs accessibility, basic functionality), which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention side effects, requirements, or output format. This is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, and it is sufficiently concise without unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool with zero parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly covers the tool's purpose and the specific items checked. No additional information is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema is empty with 100% coverage. According to the rubric, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed.

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 function: 'Performs a health check on the server'. It specifies what is verified (uptime, documentation accessibility, and basic functionality), making it distinct from sibling documentation tools. The verb 'performs' and resource 'server' are specific.

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: use this tool when you need to assess server health and functionality. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear given the sibling tools are all documentation-related. The tool's purpose naturally distinguishes it.

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