mcp_health_check

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses specific checks including evidence directory writability (implying a write test), giving insight into potential side effects. However, it does not clarify if the tool is read-only or if it modifies any state permanently, such as creating evidence files.

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 sentence that efficiently lists all health check categories. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core verb and resource.

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 description explains what is checked but does not describe the return value or expected outcome. For a tool with no output schema, this gap leaves the agent unsure what it will receive (e.g., a report, pass/fail, or structured data).

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. According to the rubric, this receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none to document.

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 checks MCP's health status, listing specific aspects like tool registration completeness, schema legality, evidence directory writability, and session/checkpoint state. This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which focus on health checking.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's purpose alone.

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