health_check

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, safe, or what side effects (if any) exist. Given it is a health check, the lack of explicit safety or non-mutating assurance is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences in Japanese. It front-loads the tool's identity ('simple tool for health check') and states its purpose without any fluff or 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it does not explain what the agent should expect as a result (e.g., success criteria, response format), leaving some ambiguity about what 'normal' means. It is not completely inadequate but has clear gaps.

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, which the schema confirms. Per rubric, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the schema is empty and coverage is vacuously high.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'confirms whether the server is operating normally' (サーバが正常に動作しているかを確認する). This uniquely identifies the tool as a health check, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on patterns, endpoints, specs, and migration.

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 by naming it a health check tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when to prefer an alternative. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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