Alive

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that a response also exercises DB connectivity — but says nothing about auth requirements, expected response shape, or what a failure indicates.

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?

A single short clause with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but nothing 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?

No output schema exists, so the description could reasonably say what a healthy vs unhealthy result looks like and whether arguments are needed. For a trivial probe this is close to adequate, but the undocumented parameters leave a real hole.

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% across three generic parameters (form, params, json_body), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. An agent cannot tell from either source whether these should be left empty for a plain health ping.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: liveness/health check, plus the extra detail that it verifies DB connectivity. That distinguishes it from pure version/status siblings like vaultwarden_version or vaultwarden_now, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the 'is the server up and can it reach the DB' probe. There is no explicit when-to-use vs vaultwarden_version, vaultwarden_config, or the diagnostics tools, and no failure-handling guidance.

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