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. It states that it returns status of browser, cache, and sessions, implying a read-only diagnostic, but it doesn't explicitly declare that it has no side effects, requires no permissions, or what the status format is. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 two short sentences that front-load the action and then specify the returned components. Every word contributes to understanding, with no 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?

For a no-parameter health check tool, the description covers the essential purpose and outputs. The presence of an output schema means return format doesn't need to be repeated. It could add context about what constitutes 'healthy' or how to interpret results, but for a tool this simple, it is mostly complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4 because there is no parameter meaning to convey, and the description correctly focuses on the output.

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 says 'Check system health' and specifies 'Returns status of browser, cache, sessions,' naming the exact components being checked. This gives a clear verb+resource and differentiates it from sibling tools that perform actions or configuration changes, though 'system health' is somewhat generic.

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 tool has no parameters and is a health check, so the usage context is implicitly when you need to verify system status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites, leaving the guidance implied rather than stated.

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