Check Router Health

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds important behavioral detail: unreachable routers are reported with healthy=false instead of throwing an error. This goes beyond annotations and informs the agent about error resilience.

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 extremely concise—only two sentences. The first sentence conveys purpose and return values, and the second addresses the key behavioral distinction. No wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates all returned fields (health status, ROS version, uptime, CPU load, memory info) and explains the error behavior. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, this provides sufficient context for the agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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% for the single parameter (routerId), and the schema description already explains the default behavior. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 ('Probe') and resource ('router health'), and clearly lists returned fields. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting the unique error-handling behavior (never throws), which is not common among list tools.

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 explicitly states that this tool never throws on unreachable routers, implying it should be used when reliable error handling is needed. However, it does not name specific alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some room for interpretation.

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