socials_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return metrics but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The name and description imply a safe diagnostic, but explicit safety details are missing.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 parameterless health check with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, return fields, and use case. It is complete for its simplicity and complexity level.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is complete (100%). The description need not explain parameters, so the baseline score of 4 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking connection health to the Socials extension and returning specific metrics (ping latency, consecutive failures, time since last successful ping). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like socials_diagnostics or socials_check_access, which likely focus on broader diagnostics or access validation.

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 an explicit use case: 'detect if the extension has disconnected mid-session.' However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it is slightly below a 5.

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