health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't reveal whether the check is read-only, what side effects might occur, whether it requires special permissions, or what the response format looks like. Since it's a health check, it's likely non-destructive, but that's not stated, and there's no mention of any output structure.

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 front-loads the core purpose and lists the covered areas. There is no fluff or redundant wording. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices substantive detail for brevity, but as a conciseness measure, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only two optional parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to use it correctly. It doesn't explain the difference between doctor and verify modes, when the platform parameter is needed, or what the health check returns. The description is minimal and leaves too much to inference.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters (mode and platform) are already described in the schema. The tool description adds nothing about parameter meaning or usage beyond what's in the schema. Per the baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter semantics without needing the description to compensate.

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 tool's action ('运行环境健康检查' - run environment health check) and enumerates the specific areas it covers (environment, config, data directory, Hook, dependencies). This is a specific verb+resource statement. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like train_doctor or daemon_status, the scope is sufficiently distinct that an agent can likely infer its purpose.

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, and doesn't explain the different modes (doctor vs verify) or the platform parameter's role. An agent has to rely on the schema to understand the modes, but there's no contextual clue about when one mode is preferred over the other or when this tool is the right choice compared to other health-related tools.

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