health_check

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the parallelism trait, which is useful, but omits whether probing is read-only, whether it makes network calls, whether failures are surfaced or swallowed, timeout behavior, or auth requirements.

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 precise fragment with no waste. However, it is under-structured for a diagnostic tool: no indication of what the probe returns or how results are shaped.

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, no annotations, and no parameters. For a diagnostic tool whose entire value is in its result, the description says nothing about output shape, success/failure semantics, or what 'parallel' implies for timing. Significant gaps remain.

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 baseline is 4 per the rules. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed since probing targets 'configured' providers, but adds no further parameter meaning.

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 ('Probe') and resource ('configured providers/models') with a parallelism modifier. Distinguishes from siblings like list_models or provider_inventory by implying active connectivity testing rather than enumeration, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 implied by 'Probe' (diagnostic/testing context) but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to siblings like provider_inventory or discover_models.

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