datasource_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the "[READ]" prefix merely restates that without adding information. The description says nothing about what a "health" check actually does (backend query, latency, error surface), whether it has side effects, or any rate/auth considerations, so it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

It is short, front-loaded with the one-line purpose, and the argument list is compact with no filler. The bracketed "[READ]" prefix is slightly redundant with the annotation but costs little.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the definition is adequate on inputs but leaves a real gap: it never indicates what the health result contains or how failure is reported, which matters since no output schema exists to fill that in.

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 carries the full burden and largely does so: datasource_id is defined as a numeric id sourced from list_datasources, and target is explained as a config target name with the omission-means-default behavior called out. Minor gaps remain (no id format/range, no target naming conventions).

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 a specific verb+resource ("Health of one Grafana datasource") and scopes it to a single datasource, which is enough to tell it apart from list_datasources. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing it from nearer siblings like prometheus_config_status or rule_health.

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 only usage signal is the parenthetical that datasource_id comes from list_datasources, which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to use this tool. There is no statement of when to prefer it over prometheus_config_status, rule_health, or other health-oriented siblings, and no exclusions.

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