Nock sidecar health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'No secrets' – a behavioral guarantee that the response won't contain sensitive data. It also lists the specific data categories returned, which helps the agent know what to expect. This goes beyond the annotations.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key data points. 'No secrets' is a valuable safety note. Zero 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 read-only health check with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what data will be returned and that no secrets are included. The only minor gap is not describing the output format, but the output schema exists and the description needn't explain return values. The sibling tools are all operational (resolve, call, search), so the health-check purpose is clear.

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 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds context about what the tool returns, which is more useful than parameter docs would be.

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 names a specific resource (Nock sidecar) and a clear verb (health check), and lists the specific data points returned: Mux health, catalog size, last index time, Needle load state. It distinguishes itself from siblings like nock.call and nock.search by focusing on health/status rather than operations. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource+verb is clear enough.

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 this is for checking health/status of the Nock sidecar, which is a common diagnostic use case. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs nock.resolve, nock.call, or nock.search, but the health/status focus makes the usage context reasonably clear. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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