health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful content signal that the check covers connection, license, build and runtime hash — which is the closest thing to a return-value summary given there is no output schema. It stops short of describing format, failure behavior, or cost.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the four checked areas are front-loaded. It is efficient, though it reads as a fragment rather than a complete statement of 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back; it enumerates the four checked areas but says nothing about the shape or meaning of the results (e.g., pass/fail, hash semantics). Combined with the covering annotations this is minimally adequate rather than 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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

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 is a bare noun phrase listing the areas checked (connection to Fusion, license, build, runtime hash) rather than a verb+resource statement of what the tool does. The tool name 'health_check' supplies the action, so an agent can infer a diagnostic read, but the description itself doesn't state the purpose and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like 'version' or 'job_status'.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as 'version', 'job_status', or 'session_state'. No preconditions, no trigger context, no exclusions — the agent must guess.

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