health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses that the tool builds a client, obtains an OAuth2 access token (with caching), and is lightweight. It also details the return keys including behavior on degraded/error results. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: a clear header sentence, usage guidance, a note about lightweightness, explicit exclusions, and return format. Every sentence contributes value. Slightly verbose with backticks and code formatting, but not excessive.

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 completely covers its behavior, return values, and when to use it. It also addresses potential edge cases (degraded/error) and provides example keys. No 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose and behavior. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, but the description adds value by explaining what the tool does without needing parameter details.

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 defines the tool as reporting server version and Aruba Central backend authentication. It uses specific verbs ('report', 'confirm', 'verify') and resource ('server version', 'backend authentication'). The tool distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch APs, switches, etc., by explicitly stating it does not fetch those endpoints.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use the tool: at session start or after a tool-call timeout. It also explains what it confirms (MCP up, version, backend auth) and what it does NOT do (fetch data endpoints), helping the agent avoid misuse. While it doesn't name alternatives, the context and sibling tools make the use case clear.

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