everything_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 discloses that the tool both probes connectivity and returns index statistics, which is useful, but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g., what happens when the server is unreachable) or whether the reported statistics are live or cached. The read-only nature is strongly implied by 'check' and 'report' but never stated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action (check connectivity) and the output (report index statistics) both earn their place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it. It could be slightly stronger by noting behavior on failure, but nothing essential is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, targeting only the locally configured server.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: checking connectivity to the local voidtools Everything HTTP server and reporting index statistics. It is clearly distinct from the sibling everything_search, which performs queries rather than a health probe, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this to verify the server is reachable before attempting a search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of a fallback such as everything_search, and no stated conditions for when a health check is warranted.

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