health_live

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses two meaningful behavioral facts: the probe requires no authentication and hits a specific fixed path. It does not describe failure modes, timeout behavior, or what a negative result looks like.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] marker and the core action, then a short args block. Two short lines, no filler, though the inline 'Args:' formatting adds mild noise for a one-parameter tool.

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 lowest-cost call in the set and no output schema exists, yet the description never says what the probe returns (e.g., liveness success/failure shape). Nothing else an agent needs is missing, but the return semantics gap keeps this at minimum-viable 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter, and it does: 'target: MinIO target name from config; omit for the default' explains origin and the omit-for-default behavior that the bare schema cannot. It could add acceptable value formats but the essential meaning is covered.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Node liveness probe') and pins it to a concrete endpoint (/minio/health/live), which clearly separates it from transactional siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby health_ready/health_cluster tools, so an agent must infer the liveness-vs-readiness distinction.

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 (a liveness check you call without credentials) and tells the caller how to pick a target, but never states when to prefer this over health_ready, health_cluster, or node_status. Only implied guidance is present.

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