healthcheck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the operation's name and license requirement—it does not mention what the response includes, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a health-check tool.

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 tightly written: a title, a one-sentence explanation, license requirements, and the endpoint. Every element is meaningful and there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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 simple no-parameter tool, the description includes license and endpoint but omits the response format or what 'health check' actually returns. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate, but it does not. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's output.

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 input schema covers 100% of nothing. The description correctly does not add parameter details because none exist. Per the rubric, this merits a baseline of 4.

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 as performing a health check of the Cortex XSIAM environment with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from general management tools but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'xsiam_health', which appears to serve a similar function.

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 the required license as a clear precondition for using the tool. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'xsiam_health' or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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