health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name ('health' -> 'check if healthy') without revealing side effects, return format, or what 'healthy' means. It implies read-only but does not explicitly state it, and gives no information about the response structure.

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, succinct sentence that exactly captures the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words.

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?

The tool is extremely simple, but it has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It tells the agent the action but not what to expect in the response (e.g., status codes, JSON structure, or error behavior). For a health check, this is a moderate gap that keeps the score at a minimally viable 3.

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, so no parameter description is necessary. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document and the description adds no semantic confusion.

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 purpose: 'Check if the MCP server is healthy.' The verb 'check' and the resource 'MCP server' make the action and scope explicit, and it is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools 'chat' and 'list_marketplace_tools'.

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 usage is implied by the description: one would call this tool to verify server health. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus any alternative, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or typical invocation scenarios.

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