pbi_health_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true; the description reinforces this with 'Solo lectura' and adds behavioral context by enumerating the aspects it reports (dependencies, DLLs, session, project state) and that it flags issues like obsolete sessions and pending journals. No contradiction with annotations.

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—two sentences—and front-loaded with the core function ('Estado general del servidor'). Each sentence provides distinct value: the first defines scope, the second explains usage and expected outputs. No wasted words.

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 the zero-parameter interface, existing output schema, and read-only annotation, the description fully captures the tool's role and the signals it reports. It tells the agent when to invoke it and what information it exposes, making it sufficient for selection and invocation.

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, making schema coverage trivially 100%. There are no hidden parameters to document, so the baseline of 4 applies without any need for description compensation.

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's purpose: general server status (dependencies, DLLs, session, project) and checking whether the live layer is available and whether a .pbip project is open. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pbi_test_connection and pbi_session_info by positioning itself as the first diagnostic call.

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?

Explicitly states 'Es lo primero que conviene llamar' (it's the first thing to call), providing clear when-to-use context. It also lists what the tool checks (e.g., obsolete session, pending journals), but does not explicitly name alternatives or 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.