Get system health

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a read-only health check. However, the description adds no extra behavioral detail beyond what the annotations provide, such as side effects, freshness guarantees, or access requirements.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core health components and immediately gives the relevant parameter guidance, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter read-only tool and the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the health report contains and how to request per-node detail. It does not describe response structure or error cases, but those are not necessary for basic correct invocation.

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 single boolean `nodes` parameter is fully covered by the schema description ('Return per-node health instead of panel-wide health'), and the tool description reinforces it with a concrete usage example. This adds clarity beyond the schema alone, though the schema already covers the meaning well.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: reporting system health, specifically NTP clock offsets, database migration status, and per-node reachability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual nodes or resources by framing it as a system-wide health view with optional per-node detail.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool and gives actionable guidance for the `nodes` parameter ('Use `nodes: true` for the node-by-node view'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the health-focused wording makes the intended use obvious.

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