health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it only loads config.ini, counts hosts, and opens no NETCONF/SSH connections. It lists all return keys and their meanings, and explains the lightweight design. This is a comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 first sentence, followed by usage guidance, behavioral details, return value list, and parameter definition. Every sentence is informative without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, return value semantics, and parameter documentation. It is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 0% description coverage, but the description adds a full parameter documentation: 'config_path: Path to config.ini (empty string uses default search).' This clarifies the parameter's meaning and default behavior beyond the schema's default field.

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 states 'Report server version and config status — without connecting to any device.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and identifies the resource (server version and config status). The emphasis on no device connection distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely involve device interactions, making the purpose unequivocal.

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 explicitly says 'Call this at session start (or after a tool-call timeout) to confirm the MCP is up.' It provides clear context for when to use the tool and explains that it is lightweight and safe, opening no network connections. This guides the agent on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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