pbi_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Solo lectura' (read-only), which is a key non-destructive trait. It also discloses the scope of the check (dependencies, DLLs, session, project) and mentions specific attention flags like obsolete sessions and pending journals, providing useful context beyond the tool name.

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 concise and well-structured, using two compact paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on usage and outcome. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without padding.

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?

The tool is a read-only health check with no parameters and an output schema already provided, so the description does not need to explain return values. It effectively covers purpose, usage timing, and key behavioral traits. It could be slightly more detailed about potential error conditions, but overall it is complete for a health-check tool.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description inherently cannot add parameter-level value when no parameters exist.

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: 'Estado general del servidor: dependencias, DLLs, sesion y proyecto' (general server status: dependencies, DLLs, session, and project). It is specific and distinguishes itself from siblings like pbi_session_info (session only) and pbi_test_connection (connection test) by covering the overall health of the live environment.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Es lo primero que conviene llamar' (it's the first thing you should call), and explains what information it conveys (live layer availability, open .pbip project, items requiring attention). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context strongly implies its role as an initial health check.

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