whatsms_admin_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'performance metrics' but does not indicate whether the check is read-only, whether it has side effects, what specific checks are performed, or what format the results take. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's operational impact.

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 efficiently conveys the core action and a key aspect ('performance metrics'). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 the simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail about what the health check covers and what the agent should expect in return. For a tool that likely returns a status report, this omission could hinder correct invocation or result interpretation. It is not misleading, but it leaves 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully specifies that no input is required. The description adds the context that the operation is a broad health check, which is useful but not necessary for parameter understanding. The baseline of 4 applies here because the schema already covers everything.

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 the tool's function: 'Perform comprehensive system health check with performance metrics.' It uses a specific verb ('Perform') and resource ('system health check'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD and cache-clearing tools by focusing on system diagnostics.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where other tools (e.g., clear_cache, get_languages) would be more appropriate. The purpose is implied but not stated as a directive.

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