ue_health_check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, and destructiveHint as false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the health data returned and explaining that deep=true runs a capability preflight, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and output, second provides usage guidance and parameter detail. Front-loaded with key information, no redundant words.

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 the essential purpose, usage, and parameter. With an existing output schema (not shown), the return values are likely well-documented. The description could mention potential error conditions or limitations, but it's fairly complete for the tool's scope.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining the 'deep' parameter's purpose: to run a capability preflight to check if the bridge can execute. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type and default.

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 'Get' and the resource 'bridge health', listing specific data points (version, uptime, circuit breaker state, request metrics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ue_preflight' and 'ue_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 explicitly says 'Use this to diagnose connection issues', providing a clear context for when to invoke the tool. It also explains the 'deep' parameter as an alternative for a deeper check, though it doesn't explicitly mention 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.