8DX API Health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (reachability check) but does not clarify what constitutes a successful check (e.g., HTTP status), the response format, or any side effects. For a health check, this is minimal but viable.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple health-check tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys the core purpose for a tool of this complexity, though it could be more specific about what 'reachable' means or what the response indicates.

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 is empty. The description need not add parameter details; the baseline of 4 applies as no parameter information is missing.

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 uses the specific verb 'checks' and clearly identifies the resource as the 'configured 8DX REST API' reachability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform transactions, searches, or wallet 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 context is implied rather than explicit. The description states the tool checks API reachability, which suggests using it to verify connectivity, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or how it fits into a workflow.

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