health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it checks readiness but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what output to expect, or whether any side effects occur. This lack of detail leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and lists all checked components. It is concise and devoid of superfluous information.

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 checklist-style health tool with an output schema, the description covers the scope of the check and is complete enough. It could mention whether it performs remote calls or just local checks, but given the output schema exists, this is a minor gap.

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 meaning to convey. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without needing param details.

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 uses the specific verb '检查' (check) and explicitly enumerates the resources being checked: FFmpeg, database, transcriber configuration, and local whisper model. This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual resources like get_transcriber_config or list_models.

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 a general health-check use case (checking environment readiness) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus more specific sibling tools. The context suggests it is a first-line diagnostic, but this is not stated.

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