bernstein_health

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: always succeeds if server is running and returns JSON with status 'ok'. This is transparent and sufficient for a read-only health check.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the key information. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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 health check with zero parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains purpose, behavior, and return format adequately.

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?

No parameters exist, so the schema covers 100% by default. The description adds no parameter info, but baseline is 4 as per rules for zero-parameter tools.

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 a 'Liveness check' that 'always succeeds if the MCP server is running', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like bernstein_status by focusing on the connection's health.

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?

Explicitly states to 'use this to verify the Bernstein MCP connection is still alive', giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like bernstein_status, which could confuse an agent.

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