ghostrigger_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reaches an external HTTP endpoint (localhost:7001), returns a structured JSON status payload (status, program, port, version, mcp) or an error object, and includes an example. This is adequate transparency for a read-only health check, though it doesn't explicitly say 'no side effects.'

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by the return format, a KB pointer, and an example. Every part earns its place; there is no repetition of schema information or filler.

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, the description covers the essential invocation facts: what it checks, what a successful response looks like, what an error looks like, and an example call. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly. A brief note about how this relates to ghostrigger_ping would raise it further, but it's not strictly required for execution.

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 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond confirming no arguments are needed. The example 'ghostrigger_health()' reinforces this, matching the baseline of 4 for parameterless 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 specific action ('Check whether the GhostRigger IPC server is running and healthy') and a clear resource (GhostRigger IPC server on port 7001). It is more specific than a bare verb but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling ghostrigger_ping, which likely overlaps in purpose.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghostrigger_ping or ghostrigger_read_resource. The KB reference and example show how to call it, but there is no stated condition like 'use this when you need full health/version info rather than just connectivity.'

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