watchdog_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It explains the behavior: agents are considered dead if heartbeat older than 5 minutes, and returns dict with alive/dead lists and counts. It does not mention side effects (likely read-only), which is acceptable for a health check.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences and a return description. Front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds necessary detail with no waste.

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?

Despite low complexity (no parameters, single resource), the description is complete. It explains the logic (5-minute threshold) and output format (dict with alive/dead lists and counts). With output schema existence, return values are covered.

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?

No parameters exist (schema empty, coverage 100%). Baseline is 4. The description adds context beyond the schema (heartbeat threshold and output format), which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 health status of all registered agents using heartbeat timestamps. It uses specific verb + resource ('Check health status of all registered agents') and distinguishes from siblings like 'os_health_check' which is for OS, and 'agent_heartbeat' which is for updating heartbeat.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when agent health is needed, but lacks exclusions or comparison with siblings like 'agent_activity_query' or 'os_health_check'. The context is clear but guidance is minimal.

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