health_check

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only 'Check server health' is given, which does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is a ping vs. deep check, or what side effects (if any) occur. It suggests a read operation but lacks details.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence. No unnecessary words, and the purpose is clear. Appropriate for a simple health check tool.

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?

Tool has no output schema, so description should explain return format. But it only says 'Check server health' without clarifying what output the agent can expect (e.g., boolean, status string). This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. According to rules, baseline is 4 when no parameters. Description does not need to add parameter info.

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 clearly states 'Check server health', which is a specific verb-resource pair. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (analyze_screen, detect_ui, list_backends, ocr_region) which are about UI and screen analysis.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. However, the tool name and description imply it is for checking server health, and sibling tools are clearly in different domains, so usage is implied.

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