Verify Server Setup

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already declaring a safe, non-mutating profile, the description adds useful context by specifying what is checked (credentials, files, environment). It does not disclose return format, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden, and no contradiction exists.

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 that immediately states the action and targets. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description adequately covers the scope. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or how results are presented, which is a minor gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds context about the tool's scope but no parameter-level semantics are needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Perform diagnostic checks' and names the exact resources (OpenRouter credentials, files, server environment), making its scope unambiguous. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that handle chat, models, or usage.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives. However, the unique diagnostic scope implies it is for verifying setup before other operations, but this remains implicit rather than explicit.

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