health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation that may access external systems. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it 'Authenticates, syncs, and reports' specific metrics, implying network calls and credential verification. It doesn't describe error behavior or side effects, but for a health check with annotations, this is adequate.

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 two sentences: the first states what it does and what it reports, the second gives when to use it. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose and outputs.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what it checks, what it reports, and when to run it. It could be slightly more explicit about interpreting results or potential error states, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and invocation timing. The list of reported metrics adds completeness beyond a generic 'health check'.

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 schema already fully covers them (coverage 100%). Per the baseline for no params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to document parameters. It does not add any param-specific semantics, but that's not a gap given there are none.

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 connectivity and configuration of the Bitwarden/Vaultwarden vault, with a specific verb ('Check') and resource. It enumerates concrete outputs (auth status, API version, collection visibility, item counts, latency), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, reveal, generate, or save items. This is a focused diagnostic tool, easily differentiated from the other 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?

The description explicitly says 'Run this first after a new install or after rotating credentials,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. Although it doesn't name alternatives, it establishes a recommended ordering (run first) and the context (new install, credential rotation), which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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