health_live

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that this is a READ operation and unauthenticated, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose return format, what a live vs down response looks like, or what happens on failure, which would help the agent interpret results.

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 compact—a single title line plus a short parameter note. It's front-loaded with the key information ([READ], endpoint) and wastes no words. Efficient and appropriately sized for a simple single-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?

For a simple liveness probe with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any mention of what the return value looks like or how to interpret success/failure, and given the many sibling health/status tools, slightly more differentiation context would be valuable.

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 description mentions the target parameter ("MinIO target name from config"), which adds a small amount of context beyond the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does explain the one parameter's purpose. Since there's only one optional parameter and it's briefly described, this is adequate but minimal.

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 "Node liveness probe" with the specific endpoint "[READ] /minio/health/live", clearly indicating a read-only health check. It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like health_ready and health_cluster by specifying the exact endpoint, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with these neighboring health probes.

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 notes it's a liveness probe and mentions the target argument, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs health_ready, health_cluster, node_status, or other health-related siblings. The unauthenticated qualification provides context but no exclusions or alternatives.

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