health_check

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 describes what is reported and distinguishes two failure modes, which is useful, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and each sentence adding value: the first states what it does, the second gives the usage trigger, and the third clarifies the diagnostic value. No fluff.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, and the kind of result to expect. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Verify the toolchain' and enumerates the report contents ('which tools work, which are impaired, what to install'). Clear but does not explicitly differentiate from diagnostic siblings such as debug_failure, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Run this first when anything behaves unexpectedly.' It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit alternative routing that would earn a 5.

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