check_provider_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool avoids loading kokoro/faster-whisper models, which is a key behavioral trait that prevents surprise time/disk costs. It also indicates that the check covers both network reachability and dependency installation, adding useful detail beyond a simple status check.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check whether...') and then adds a parenthetical rationale for avoiding heavy model loads. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 health check with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what is checked, why it avoids model loading, and what aspect of fallback dependencies it verifies. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description need not explain parameter meaning because there are none. It focuses instead on the tool's purpose and behavior, which is appropriate here.

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 names a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Groq's hosted TTS/STT endpoints' and 'local fallback's optional dependency'), and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on health/readiness rather than performing TTS/STT operations. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 conveys a clear context: this is a quick health check meant to verify reachability and dependency installation before heavier operations. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'use before text_to_speech', but the purpose and the warning against model loading imply when it should be used. The absence of explicit exclusions keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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