os_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs a read-only reachability check on the team list endpoint and additionally reports token-attribution coverage data. The returns section explains what information is delivered (API reachability, team count, usage coverage summary, narrowest link). This is a read-only operation, and the description makes that clear by describing verification rather than modification.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating the primary purpose, followed by an elaboration of the method and a returns section. It's moderately concise with no wasted words, though slightly verbose in the returns section listing details like 'measured / dispatched per path'.

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?

Given this is a zero-parameter diagnostics tool with an output schema present, the description reasonably covers what it checks (API reachability, team count) and what additional data it reports (attribution coverage). The presence of an output schema means return values don't need full documentation. The description is adequate for a health-check utility.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to document parameters but instead explains what the tool examines (team list endpoint) and what it returns, which adds relevant context about the tool's internal behavior despite having no inputs.

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 it checks the health status of the AI Team OS API service by accessing the team list endpoint. It specifies the verb (check), the resource (AI Team OS API service), and the method (accessing team list endpoint), distinguishing it from siblings like team_status and team_list which check specific team/OS states.

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 implies when to use it (to verify API service is running normally) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For a zero-parameter diagnostics tool, the health-check purpose is fairly self-evident, but no exclusions or alternative tool comparisons are provided.

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