Health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It does so by disclosing what is checked: DB status and chain counts. It also implies a read-only, non-mutating nature, which is important because the sibling list includes mutating tools like retry_now and pause_chain. However, it does not describe response format or any side effects, though a health check is generally read-only.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and scoped to its key outputs. No filler or redundant information. It earns a top score for efficiency.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It states the tool's scope (DB status and chain counts), and the output schema presumably documents the return shape. It could mention whether the tool fails or errors when the DB is down, but this is minor given the output schema exists.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The schema already confirms no parameters are accepted. The description adds meaningful scope information about what the health check covers (DB status and chain counts), which is more than the empty schema conveys. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Health check with DB status and chain counts.' It is distinguishable from sibling tools, which focus on chain operations, retries, and config, even though it shares the 'health' concept with the title. It is succinct and specific.

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 gives clear context that this is a health check, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as list_chains or get_chain. There are no other health-related siblings, so the usage is implied rather than exclusionary.

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