Check Router Health

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations: it never throws and reports unreachable routers as healthy=false. This is valuable for agent planning, as it contrasts with typical probing tools that might raise errors.

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: the first states purpose and return fields, the second adds a key behavioral differentiator. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words, making it concise and well-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?

The description covers purpose, return fields, and error handling behavior. For a simple read-only health check tool, this is mostly complete. It lacks specifics on return format (e.g., data types) but that is not essential for tool selection.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter 'routerId' with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional semantics or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Probe' and resource 'router', lists exact return fields (health status, ROS version, uptime, CPU load, memory info), and distinguishes from sibling tools by highlighting the never-throws behavior. This makes the purpose clear and unique.

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 health checks where unreachable routers are acceptable ('unreachable routers are reported as healthy=false'), suggesting it is safer than alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives, 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.