get_bot_health

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the tool reads logs/, state/, and ps aux, and specifies the components (E2E sentinel, token expiry). This provides valuable behavioral context not captured in annotations, though it does not mention potential rate limits or latency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a list of returned metrics and a read-only declaration. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted text.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (list of metrics per bot). It covers key aspects like process status, log timestamps, regime, error counts, and token expiry. Minor omission: no mention of error handling for offline bots or missing data, but for a health snapshot it is sufficiently 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (the bot parameter is described in the schema with values). The main description reinforces the bot names but offers no new semantic details.

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 returns a unified health snapshot for four specific futures bots and the Kalshi daemon, listing the exact metrics included. This is a specific verb+resource combination that effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_health or get_agent_loop_status.

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 through its specificity (e.g., 'for all four live futures bots'), but it does not explicitly provide when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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