health_check

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

The description adds 'non-secret' to the annotations, which already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. This provides some additional context but does not deeply describe behavioral traits such as what 'safety posture' includes or any side effects. Given the annotations, the description adds modest value.

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, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word is necessary, and no space is wasted. It is appropriately sized for a health check tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete. It conveys the essential purpose without needing elaboration. The output schema will handle return value details.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately handles this.

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 states the tool's purpose: reporting the server's runtime safety posture. It uses a specific verb 'report' and identifies the resource 'MCP server's non-secret runtime safety posture'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are primarily focused on Odoo operations.

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 implies usage for health checking but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks statements about prerequisites, when not to use, or comparisons with siblings. However, its unique purpose among siblings suggests it is the appropriate tool for health checks.

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