TPS / MSPT / GC health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description details the return format comprehensively but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a health check tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not stated, leaving some uncertainty.

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 sentence that efficiently lists many metrics. It is front-loaded with 'Tick health:' but could be slightly more readable. No fluff exists, though the term 'tick' is awkward.

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 no output schema, the description provides a thorough overview of the return values, including specific percentiles, time series, and window highlighting. It covers the main aspects expected from a health tool, leaving little ambiguity about what information is retrieved.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (profileId and windowLimit). The description adds no additional context for the parameters, listing only output metrics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema is self-sufficient.

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 specifies the tool returns health metrics including TPS, MSPT percentiles, ping, heap, and GC analysis. The verb 'tick' is ambiguous but the list of metrics makes the purpose clear. It is specific about the resource (health) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_heap_summary or get_system_stats by listing different metrics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as diagnose or get_system_stats. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or what scenarios it is best suited for. The agent must infer from the metric list.

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