link_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only probe but says nothing about what is checked, whether authentication is needed, what the response contains, or latency. For a runtime health tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves the agent largely uninformed.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the subject front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than to crisp completeness.

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 structurally simple (0 params, no output schema), so little is required, but the description never indicates what a health check returns (status, latency, dependency list) or how to interpret results. Minimum viable but with a clear gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a health check for the link MCP server runtime. An agent can tell it is a diagnostic probe rather than an analysis tool, though it never names the sibling analyze_link_for_frontend or otherwise differentiates itself explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word 'health check' implies a diagnostic use case, but the description never says under what conditions an agent should call this versus analyze_link_for_frontend or nothing at all.

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