system_get_system_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what is returned (health checks and system info) but does not disclose side effects, safety (read-only), authentication needs, or rate limits. Since it's a health check, it's likely safe, but this is implicit.

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and add relevant detail. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema (context signal), the description adequately explains the tool's return content (subsystems and system info). However, it lacks mention of any prerequisites or safety concerns, which would be helpful.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema). Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate as no parameter documentation is needed.

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 it retrieves system health status, listing specific subsystems (recorder, websocket, cloud, network) and basic system info (version, dev mode, virtual env). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on health checks rather than configuration or updates.

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 use for health monitoring but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like system_check_config or system_ping_ha. No exclusions or usage context are mentioned.

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