health_check

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses the tool's checks (disk, CPU, RAM, uptime), confirms no sudo required, and states the return format. It does not mention potential impact or performance, but given the read-only nature of a health check, the disclosure 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 concise with four short sentences, front-loading the main action and then specifying details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description provides all necessary information: what checks are performed, the return format, and permission requirements. It is fully complete for this tool.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 performs a complete system health check, listing specific metrics (disk, CPU, RAM, uptime) and the return format. This distinguishes it from more focused sibling tools like disk_usage or memory_usage, giving a clear aggregate purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like top_consumers or system_info. The description does not specify that this is for a quick overview while others are for detailed investigation, leaving the agent to infer context.

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