mesh_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. It discloses the required scope ('integrations:mesh:read') and mentions governance ('Arbiter constitutional policy') and auditing ('ProofLink cryptographic receipt'), adding valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'check health'.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and return data, followed by essential policy/scope context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter health check tool, the description lists the key return fields (ok status, admin user, enrolled device count) and adds governance context. It does not specify the exact JSON output structure, but for a health check this is acceptable. It is complete enough given the tool's simplicity.

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 the input schema is fully covered. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description includes return fields, which is 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 explicitly states 'Check MeshCentral remote device management health' and lists the return values (ok status, admin user, enrolled device count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling health tools like trmm_health or ragflow_health by specifying the target system.

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 usage for checking MeshCentral health but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other health checks or provide alternative recommendations. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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