flutter_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the 10s probe timeout, that it never raises (per-check errors only), the degraded-vs-sick distinction for the cache check, the exact overall verdict vocabulary, and the environment variable that disables the politeness layer. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining paragraphs each cover a distinct concern (degraded cache semantics, probe behaviour, politeness counters). It is prose-heavy and the doubled backticks read awkwardly, but very little of it is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey the return shape — and it does, describing per-check status, the overall verdict, and the top-level politeness block. Only the usage/alternative question against 'health_check' is left unanswered.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-argument tool is 4. No parameter-level detail is missing.

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 opening line states a specific verb+resource and enumerates what the check inspects (search index state, cache stats, live API probes), which is far more than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool literally named 'health_check', leaving the agent to guess which diagnostic to call.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named even though 'health_check' is a sibling with an overlapping purpose. Usage is only implied by the word 'Health check'; for a diagnostics tool with a near-duplicate sibling, that is a real gap.

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