flo_plugin_healthcheck

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 indicates a read-only diagnostic operation but does not elaborate on side effects, auth requirements, or return behavior. More detail would improve transparency.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple healthcheck tool.

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 output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., success/failure, status details). For a diagnostic tool, this missing context could hinder correct interpretation. However, with only one optional parameter, it is mostly adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the authToken parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 the tool checks config/auth/runtime reachability for the plugin, distinguishing it from other tools like query or auth login. It uses a specific verb 'check' and resource 'reachability'.

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 usage for verifying connectivity but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like flo_auth_status or flo_query. No 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.