Health Check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the tool checks health status without indicating whether it is idempotent, read-only, or what side effects (if any) occur. The existence of an output schema partly compensates, but the description itself lacks behavioral details.

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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning typical return fields), but it is concise without being vague.

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 and provides an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the tool's function. Additional details about the health check's scope would improve completeness but are not essential.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given no parameters exist. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 'Check' and identifies the resource as 'health status of the MCP registry', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_server, list_servers, etc.) which deal with specific server data rather than overall health.

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 provides no guidance on when to use the tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or contexts where it is appropriate. Absent any contextual hints, the agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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