dispatch_admin_health

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: requires token/env var, returns internal queue state, container status, error counts, and error string on failure. Annotations already mark readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent—description aligns and expands.

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 and front-loaded, but the example is somewhat redundant (calling becomes clear from the purpose). The Returns section is informative. Slight room for tightening without loss.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all essential context: token requirement, what the tool returns, and error conditions. It is complete for this simple tool.

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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description mentions the token requirement (env var, not a parameter) and does not need to add schema info. No parameter explanation is necessary.

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 'Get extended admin health check for the dispatch platform', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the public /healthz endpoint and sibling tools like dispatch_health_check, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly mentions the token requirement and contrasts with public health check. It provides a usage example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives among siblings, missing a chance for complete guidance.

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