provider_healthcheck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (204 no-content), the force-refresh/delay measurement, and that results are in provider_list. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions, or error conditions, so transparency is moderate.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args list, and a Returns note. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it exceptionally efficient.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the action, the parameter, the return value, and how to access the result state. It could add error handling or prerequisites, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has no description for the 'provider' parameter, but the description adds meaning by labeling it as 'provider name' and giving an example ('MyVPN'). This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it doesn't elaborate on format or constraints beyond a simple string.

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 action: 'Trigger health check on a provider (force-refresh + delay measurement).' This specifies the verb (trigger), resource (provider), and additional effect. While it references provider_list for observing results, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like provider_update_url, but the intent is clear.

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 by explaining the effect and that the health state is observable via provider_list, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The context is present but not directly stated.

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