probo_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions governance under 'Arbiter constitutional policy' and a 'ProofLink cryptographic receipt', adding behavioral context. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 sentences plus a separate line for scope/policy. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers inputs (none) and outputs at a high level (ok status and control count) but does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON structure). Given no output schema, more detail on the response shape would improve completeness.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but this is sufficient given the absence of parameters. Baseline 4 applies for 0-param tools.

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 checks 'Probo compliance platform health' and returns 'ok status and control count'. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling health tools like mesh_health or langfuse_health.

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 specifies a required scope ('integrations:probo:read'), which provides a prerequisite for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like other health checks or when not to use it.

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