health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool returns a status dictionary, but does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the server is down), side effects, or any safety guarantees. This is insufficient given the lack of annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences and a Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose: it states what the tool is for and what it returns. No unnecessary wording.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core essentials. It could be improved by explaining why one would run a health check or what actions to take based on the result, but these are not strictly necessary for a basic health check tool.

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 no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not introduce any confusion or redundancy.

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 it is a tool for checking whether the server is operating normally, using a specific verb ('確認する') and resource (server health). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_endpoints or describe_endpoint, which focus on API metadata rather than server status.

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 health checks ('ヘルスチェック用') but does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or provide any exclusion criteria. It provides basic context but lacks the explicit guidance seen in higher-scoring examples.

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