health_check

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

The description discloses key behaviors: SSH connectivity testing and response time measurement, and all-device check when no device specified. However, without annotations, it does not cover potential failure modes, impact, or response details. This is adequate but not rich.

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 with 3 sentences, front-loading the purpose and then explaining parameters. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 health check tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description sufficiently covers behavior and parameter usage. It leaves little ambiguity for the agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description's explanation that 'device' is an optional name and omitting it checks all devices adds essential meaning. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though no additional examples or formats are given.

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 'Check reachability and response time for devices' and specifies it tests SSH connectivity. This verb+resource pair is specific and distinct from sibling tools like parallel_health_check which likely does bulk checks.

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 notes that omitting the device parameter checks all devices, providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like parallel_health_check for multiple devices, or when to use other check tools.

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