health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses returns (server info, environment flags) and behavior (runs test retrieval to verify accessibility). The phrase 'light probe' implies non-destructive, though read-only is not explicitly stated.

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?

Single sentence effectively conveys purpose, output, and verification behavior without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and how it verifies. It omits return format details, but these are not critical for a health check.

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 (probe_query). The description's mention of 'tiny test retrieval' complements the schema by linking the parameter's purpose, but adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description states 'Light connectivity and status probe' with clear verb 'probe' and resource (server/vector store). It distinguishes from sibling retrieve_chunks by framing as a connectivity test rather than actual retrieval.

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?

Clear context implies use for checking health/connectivity, reinforced by 'tiny test retrieval' suggesting it is not for real queries. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but context alone is sufficient for a simple probe tool.

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