cookie_health

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. The description only states the action ('get health status') but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the side effects are. This is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it could be more complete by hinting at what the health status includes (e.g., healthy/unhealthy). Nevertheless, for a simple health-check tool, the description is adequate.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying that the tool acts on 'all configured cookie domains', which clarifies the scope beyond the empty schema. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, and the description provides relevant context.

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 'Get health status of all configured cookie domains' uses a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('health status of cookie domains'), and clarifies scope ('all configured'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'search_health' which likely targets search systems.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not specify that it is for cookie domains only, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions that would help an agent decide between 'cookie_health' and 'search_health'.

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