get_tower_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by listing the specific health aspects it checks (reachable, memory, active jobs, GPU status), which is beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single 13-word sentence that is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and efficiently lists the key health metrics. Every word adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose and key outputs without needing to explain return values since no output schema exists. It is adequate for a simple health check tool, though it could optionally detail output format or error behavior.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. The mention of ALGOCHAINS_TOWER_HOST as a configuration indicates the scope without parameter guidance 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 checks the health of the configured compute node (ALGOCHAINS_TOWER_HOST) and lists specific metrics: reachable, memory, active jobs, GPU status. This distinguishes it from sibling health-check tools targeting different components.

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 for checking compute node health but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bot_health or get_system_health. No exclusions or context.

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