health_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The '[READ]' prefix communicates it's a read operation. It lists what fields are returned (hostname, uptime, CPU, memory, load) which is helpful, but doesn't describe what the response structure looks like, whether it can fail, what the default target is, or how the target is resolved. The functional field listing adds some value but leaves behavioral gaps.

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?

Two lines of core content plus a compact Args section. Each sentence earns its place: purpose is stated, target semantics are clarified. It is appropriately brief for a simple snapshot tool. Efficient and front-loaded with the read nature and field list.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the single parameter. However, it doesn't describe what the health snapshot output looks like, how often it refreshes, or how to interpret the load values. The output structure is entirely unpredicted. Given the tool's simplicity, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description does explain 'target' as 'Firewall target name from config' and notes it's optional with a default, which does add meaning beyond the schema's bare definition. However, it doesn't specify the target format, valid values, or what happens if an invalid target is given. The description adds some semantic value but is thin.

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 states 'System health snapshot: hostname, uptime, CPU, memory, load' which clearly identifies the verb+resource and the specific fields returned. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like gateway_status or gateway_health_rca, though those names are distinct enough that differentiation is contextual. The core purpose is clear and specific.

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 read-only status retrieval with '[READ]' prefix and lists what's included. It provides minimal context on when to use this vs siblings like gateway_health_rca, interface_status, or gateway_status. There's no explicit exclusion guidance, but the trailing note about target ('omit for the default') provides some usage context. Overall, usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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