hai_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It directly states 'No model calls,' which meaningfully signals a non-model, likely read-only operation. It does not fully explain what 'project path usability' entails or whether any state is touched, but the health-check framing and explicit no-model-call statement provide solid transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the resource, the optional parameter role, and the key behavioral disclaimer 'No model calls.'

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states purpose, safety behavior, and the parameter's role. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from the similarly named hai_status tool, but that is a sibling-selection issue rather than a functional completeness issue.

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 provides no parameter description, so the description must compensate. It adds that project_path is optional and tied to 'usability' checking, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what makes a path usable, expected formats, or how the path affects the health check.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Check HAI-MCP server health') and clarifies scope with 'No model calls.' It is clear, but because there is a sibling tool named hai_status, it does not explicitly differentiate this health check from the status check.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hai_status or the other sibling tools. 'No model calls' implies a safe diagnostic use, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or routing hints.

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