smartgym_health

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). Beyond that, the description discloses failure and warning semantics: ok=true means the server returned account data, `problem` describes what to fix, and `warning` signals a version mismatch against the version the MCP was verified against. It does not mention auth requirements or any rate/latency characteristics, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with what is checked, then output semantics in two short, disciplined sentences with no filler. Slight redundancy in explaining `ok`, `problem`, and `warning` when an output schema already exists, but it is compact enough that this does not hurt readability.

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?

With no parameters, an existing output schema, and annotations covering read safety, the description supplies exactly the remaining information: what is inspected, what success means, and how to interpret the problem/warning fields. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no space on argument semantics and instead invests in output interpretation.

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 ('Check') plus three named resources it inspects: the credentials file, the SmartGym server, and the installed app version. It is immediately distinguishable from all siblings, which are routine/exercise mutation and listing 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?

Usage is implied by the tool's nature — a diagnostic check — and there is no sibling alternative to route away from, so no explicit exclusions are needed. However, the description never says when to call it (e.g. before first use, after auth failures, to troubleshoot), leaving timing to inference.

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