agent_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key health dimensions (availability, authentication, latency), which implies a read-only status check. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior. This is sufficient for a simple health check but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and key aspects without any filler or redundant words. It is appropriately sized and immediately allows an agent to understand the core function.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential context. It explains what will be checked (availability, auth, latency) and that all agents are checked if no agent is specified. While it doesn't detail return format, this is not critical for a simple health-check tool.

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 input schema provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'agent', including its description and allowed enum values. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema is self-explanatory, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Check') and a specific resource ('agent health status'), with concrete aspects ('availability, authentication, latency'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_agent, list_agents, and review_code, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use this tool: whenever an agent's health needs to be checked. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for listing agents use list_agents'. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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