ragflow_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses governance (Arbiter policy), cryptographic receipts (ProofLink), and that it returns health status and dataset count. It implies read-only behavior (health check) without stating it explicitly, which is acceptable.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and resource. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose/returns, scope requirement, governance detail.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential information: what it returns, required scope, and governance. It could be slightly more specific about the 'ok status' format, but for a health check it is sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it is complete.

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 verb 'Check' and resource 'RAGflow RAG platform health', and specifies the return values (ok status and dataset count). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ragflow_query (which is for queries) and other health checks targeting different platforms.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to check RAGflow health) and mentions the required scope. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough relative to sibling health tools.

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