health_check

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

The description indicates the tool tests reachability, but provides no details on what 'reachability' entails (e.g., checks performed, response format, or side effects). Since there are no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it lacks behavioral depth for a read-only check.

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 concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Verify'. It contains no unnecessary words and efficiently conveys the purpose.

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 with no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It could optionally hint at the return value (e.g., success/failure), but the current text is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's function.

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 coverage is 100% (empty schema). No parameter description is needed, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate.

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 that the tool verifies reachability of both the MCP bridge and WordPress site, using a specific verb ('Verify') and resource scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are focused on page/plugin operations.

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 by the tool's name and description (use when checking connectivity), but no explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use is provided. No alternatives are mentioned, though no sibling tool serves the same purpose.

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