get_mid_server_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Beyond those, the description usefully discloses that the result is an aggregated health summary and that the output-queue portion is only a "backlog sample," which is meaningful behavioral nuance.

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 dense sentence front-loads the core purpose, then lists the returned health facets. There is no wasted text.

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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. It is complete enough for a read-only health-summary tool, though it could clarify issue scope or sample size for the queue backlog.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as "MID Server name or sys_id." The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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: "MID Server health summary" for a named MID Server, and enumerates the health aspects it covers (status, version, refresh, issues, extension contexts, queue backlog). This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings such as list_mid_servers and list_mid_server_issues.

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 "health summary" for a single MID Server, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives for drilling into issues, contexts, or queue details via sibling tools.

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