axiorank_get_healthLiveness/readiness probe for the AxioRank control plane (API + database reachability). Returns status: ok|degraded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds value by specifying the exact resource checked (API + database) and the return format, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey all necessary information without any filler.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what to expect as output.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly handles this by focusing on behavior.
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 is a liveness/readiness probe for the AxioRank control plane, specifying it checks API and database reachability and returns a status of 'ok' or 'degraded'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which are health probes.
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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool (to check health), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate, but not exemplary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different aspects of agent, policy, incident, and threat management with no overlap. Tools like axiorank_list_agents and axiorank_get_agent are differentiated by list vs. get, and quarantine vs. revoke serve different use cases.
All tools follow a consistent 'axiorank_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict tool names based on action and resource. No mixing of conventions or abbreviations.
With 22 tools, the server covers a comprehensive security governance domain. While slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, each tool serves a specific function and the count is justified by the breadth of features (agents, policies, incidents, scoring, verification, audit).
The tool surface covers agent and policy lifecycle (CRUD except delete), incident querying, scoring, verification, and audit. Minor gaps include missing delete operations for policies and incidents, and no way to update incident status. However, the core workflows are well-supported.