arcane_get_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'check health status' without detailing what the response contains, whether it is read-only, or any potential side effects. The lack of an output schema makes this even more insufficient.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 no parameters, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what 'health status' indicates (e.g., response format, possible values). The current description is minimal but adequate for a trivial health check; however, more detail about the return value would make it complete.

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 description need not explain parameter meaning. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 checks the health status of the Arcane API, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like arcane_get_system_info and arcane_get_version by focusing on health status rather than system details or version information.

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 usage for health monitoring, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like arcane_get_system_info or arcane_get_version. There is no guidance on when not to use it or mention of other tools for related purposes.

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