prophetkey_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what the check covers (expiry, usage, security score) and implies a read-only health assessment, but it does not explicitly confirm it is non-mutating or describe side effects, output shape, or potential rate-impact.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, scope, and the specific health dimensions in under 20 words.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what operation to invoke and what the health check examines. The only gap is not describing the return format, but no output schema is required and the purpose is clear enough for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and the empty schema is consistent with an aggregate check over all stored keys.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run a health check') and a clear resource ('all stored API keys'), with concrete attributes checked: expiry, usage, and security score. This differentiates it from siblings like get_key_info, which targets a single key, and list_keys, which simply lists.

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 makes the scope ('all stored API keys') and purpose clear, so when to run an aggregate health check is implied. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as get_key_info for a single key or list_keys for a plain listing.

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