health_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only check (server active and config loaded) but does not mention side effects (likely none), required permissions, error behavior, or return format details. The description is adequate but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core purpose and indicates that configuration details are returned, but it does not elaborate on the 'verbose' parameter or the exact structure of the response. This is a minor gap for a health check tool, leaving it slightly incomplete.

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 only parameter 'verbose' is not explained in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema provides type and default, but the description does not clarify what 'verbose' does or how it affects the output. Since there is no description compensation for the low schema coverage, the semantics are incomplete.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Comprueba' / checks) and distinct resource ('el servidor MCP está activo y qué configuración básica está cargada'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on server health and configuration checks rather than content or lab-related actions.

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 a clear context for use: when you need to verify server status or basic configuration. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the utility is self-evident among the sibling tools, and no competing tool covers health checks.

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