art.provider.health

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Check' reasonably implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, any required permissions, or what constitutes 'health status.' It gives some behavioral signal but leaves important details unstated.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is no redundant information or filler, and the phrasing is direct and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, making the description minimally viable. However, it omits what the health check returns, how 'health' is defined, error behavior, and the relationship to sibling provider tools, leaving clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, provider_id, is described as 'Provider ID' in the schema. The description itself adds no additional meaning or usage details for the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already documents it adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a particular resource ('health status of a specific provider'), making the core function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like art.provider.get or art.provider.capabilities, but 'health status' is a distinct concern, so the meaning is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as art.provider.get, art.provider.capabilities, or art.provider.list. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or mention of alternatives, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate context solely from the name.

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