health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reports server status and configured optional sources, which is useful, but it does not define what 'status' includes, the response format, or whether any side effects or prerequisites exist.

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 concise sentence with the primary point ('Status do servidor') front-loaded, followed by the secondary detail about optional sources. There is no filler, repetition, or structural waste.

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 health-check tool, the description conveys the essential return contents and purpose. It lacks specifics about the exact shape or values returned, but with no output schema and minimal complexity, the description is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes the input contract. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific details because none 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 states 'Status do servidor e quais fontes opcionais estão configuradas' ('Server status and which optional sources are configured'), clearly identifying a server health-check resource. It lacks an explicit verb like 'check' or 'verify', but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from the data-retrieval sibling tools.

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: call this tool to check server status and see which optional data sources are configured. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, but its role as a health check is apparent from the unique wording and zero-parameter schema.

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