shlink_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds minimal context by specifying the 'configured' instance, but does not explain what 'healthy' means, the return format, or behavior on failure, offering only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 a single short sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the verb 'Check'. It contains no fluff or redundant details, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core function adequately. However, it omits any indication of what the response looks like or the criteria for 'healthy', which would be useful for an agent invoking the tool and interpreting its result. This is a minor gap rather than a major one.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation. Per the baseline for zero-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds clarity about the tool's purpose but no parameter-specific details 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's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('configured Shlink instance'), making it unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which relate to health checking.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (to verify Shlink health), and no alternative health-check tool exists among siblings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or any prerequisites, so it doesn't fully define usage context.

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