crispasr_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. It conveys a read-only health check and names the expected output (running status and backend), but it does not disclose failure behavior, response format, timeouts, or authentication needs. Adequate but shallow.

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 14-word sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place for a tool of this simplicity.

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 simple health check with one optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose and output concept. But with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return value details, error behavior, and the role of server_url, making it sufficient for selection but not fully complete for robust 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 input schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions server_url. The parameter name and default are self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no meaning or usage guidance for it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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') and names the resource ('a CrispASR server') plus the concrete outcome: whether it is running and which backend it uses. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling crispasr_backends, which also concerns backends, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need to verify server health or identify the active backend before other operations. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like crispasr_backends, leaving context to inference.

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