tv_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Check' but doesn't explain whether this is read-only, what network operations occur, what the output looks like, or whether any side effects (e.g., opening connections) are involved. The acronym 'CDP' is ambiguous and could lead to misinterpretation.

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 listing the key check areas. It's concise and transparent, though the term 'CDP' could be expanded for clarity. Every word contributes to the overall intent.

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 health check tool, the description lacks critical context: it doesn't explain what constitutes a healthy state, what output or status indicators to expect, how to interpret results, or how it relates to the many sibling diagnostic tools. No output schema exists, so the description must carry more, but it doesn't.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to the baseline, no parameter explanation is needed. The description's mention of the checked areas adds some context but is not required for parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and lists the resources: CDP, TradingView market-data connection, compatibility, and current chart state. This gives a clear general purpose, but it doesn't distinguish itself from specialized sibling tools like tv_compatibility_check or chart_get_state, and 'CDP' is an unexplained acronym.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tv_compatibility_check, chart_get_state, or tv_watchdog_sample. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or which scenarios favor this comprehensive check over individual checks.

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