Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is 'compact' and for 'fast smoke checks,' which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not detail what the summary contains or any limitations.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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 simple health-check tool with detailed annotations and an output schema, the description adequately conveys its lightweight nature. However, it lacks parameter guidance and does not clarify the relationship with similar tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 schema has one parameter (response_format) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter or its possible values. The agent is left unaware that it can request 'json' or 'markdown' output, which is a significant gap.

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 it returns a 'runtime health summary' for 'fast smoke checks,' indicating a specific lightweight health check. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like localnest_server_status, which may serve a similar purpose.

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 phrase 'for fast smoke checks' implies usage context (quick verification), but there is no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives like localnest_server_status or localnest_index_status.

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