aa_healthcheck

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions it returns connectivity status, model count, and error details, but does not disclose whether it is safe to call repeatedly, if authentication is required (though implied by 'API key validity'), or any other behavioral traits beyond the obvious.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose followed by a bullet-like description of returns. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema. Description covers the key return fields (connectivity status, model count, error details), making it complete for a healthcheck tool.

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?

No parameters in input schema, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add param details. It adds meaning by explaining the return values.

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?

Description states 'Verify API key validity and upstream API reachability' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like listing models or comparing models, which are different operations.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied as a preliminary check, but alternatives are not mentioned. Could specify that it is suitable for verifying connectivity before other operations.

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