mcp_health

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe non-mutating read. The description adds some value by naming the returned sub-fields (live/restore_failed, tool counts), but says nothing about freshness, cost, or what 'restore_failed' implies operationally.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the resource and lists the salient outputs. No filler, though the parenthetical is slightly cryptic out of context.

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 read-only health check with annotations covering safety, this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description only partially characterizes the return payload and never explains the verbose parameter, leaving gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'verbose' is never mentioned in the description. Since this is a 1-param tool whose only knob controls output detail, the description should have explained what verbose toggles, but it does not.

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?

States a specific resource (process + adapter health) and the key outputs (live/restore_failed, tool counts), making it distinguishable from management siblings like mcp_list or mcp_query_by_protocol. It is clear what the tool reports, though the phrasing 'snapshot for agents' is slightly internal-facing.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling tools. An agent can infer it is a diagnostics call, but nothing tells it when this is preferable to environment_inventory or compat_scan.

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