healthcheck

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals caching behavior via the preflight cache, potential for stale results, and firmware-delta findings. It also explains the severity tiering and how CRITICAL findings should gate operations, adding meaningful 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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the purpose, then covers read-only behavior, returns, and caching, with each sentence adding distinct value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 relatively simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the return format (per-check findings with severity), the gating semantics, the cache behavior, and firmware-delta scenario. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has one optional 'profile' parameter, but the description gives no explanation of what it does or how to use it. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it remains undocumented and ambiguous.

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 the specific verb 'Audit' and clearly states the resource scope: device readiness/recovery, security posture, and firmware. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like power_state or firmware_check, and the added context about gating destructive operations makes its role clear.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before a subsequent destructive operation, especially when a remote KVM hangs. It also highlights the most important finding (recovery-path). It doesn't name alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently clear to guide selection.

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