art.provider.health_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It does explain the return format: a map from provider ID to health status with latency and consecutive failure count, but it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, permission needs, or failure behavior. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second states the return value. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 tool with no output schema, the description states both what happens and what the response contains. Including possible health-status values or latency units would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing for selection and invocation.

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 captures this completely, so the description does not need to explain parameters. This meets the baseline for a no-parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('health of all registered providers') and explicitly includes the output shape. The 'all' distinguishes this from sibling art.provider.health without needing to compare schemas.

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 a use case for checking all providers at once, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over art.provider.health or other provider tools. There is no exclusion or alternative routing.

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