health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden and excels. It explicitly states the tool only reads and parses config.ini, does NOT open eAPI/pyeapi connections, and always returns a predictable key set including degraded/error behavior via a 'detail' field.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat longer than necessary, repeating 'lightweight' and emphasizing safety multiple times, but each sentence adds useful context (when to call, return keys, error handling). No fluff, but could be slightly trimmed.

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 (one optional param, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description covers purpose, usage timing, safety, and return keys comprehensively. The main gap is the undocumented config_path parameter, which prevents a perfect completeness score.

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 schema has one optional parameter, config_path, with 0% description coverage in the schema. The tool description never explains this parameter. It only lists 'config_path' as a return key ('resolved config.ini path'), which hints at path resolution but does not clarify whether the parameter overrides the default path or how it affects behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report server version and configuration status (lightweight).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling device-focused tools by emphasizing it checks the MCP server itself, not EOS devices, and explicitly states it does not open eAPI connections.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this at session start (or after a tool-call timeout) to confirm the MCP is up...' It also clarifies it is safe for large fleets because it doesn't touch the network. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the context clearly implies using this for server health rather than device operations.

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