health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine domain context: the profile-mismatch-is-informational note tells the agent mismatches are not actionable failures, and "Performs no game action" disambiguates it from action-oriented siblings.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the statement of what is read comes first. The noun list is somewhat jargon-dense but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a zero-parameter read-only diagnostic tool, the description covers what is read and its non-side-effecting nature; the only gap is the absence of explicit routing against sibling diagnostics.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for, and the schema is fully self-describing.

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?

Names a clear verb (Read) and enumerates the specific artifacts returned: connection state, fixed versions, native profile, and historical test-profile comparison. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like observe or action_status, but the resource content is distinctive enough to identify the tool.

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?

Override implicit context, but no explicit when-to-use. "Performs no game action" hints at a safe diagnostic use case, and "A profile mismatch is information only" tells the agent not to react to mismatches. However nothing says when to prefer this over observe or action_status.

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