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 implies a non-destructive read, but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether it hits external dependencies, rate limits, or what 'basic' excludes from the result. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, though the brevity comes at the cost of the information other dimensions penalize.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, an undocumented parameter, and no usage context, the description is only minimally complete for a tool whose whole value is diagnostic clarity.

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 0% and the single 'format' parameter is typed only as string-or-null with no enumerated values. The description never mentions the parameter or its accepted formats, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (basic readiness information for the Agent Mail server), which is clearly distinguishable from every sibling tool that deals with agents, messages, or reservations. It does not, however, define what 'readiness' actually covers (process liveness vs. dependency checks), so the purpose is clear in category but not in detail.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite or auth context, and no indication of whether it should be used as a preflight step. The agent can only infer usage from the name 'health_check'.

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