gsa_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only validation of COM availability and returns a version, but omits failure modes, error behavior when COM is unavailable, and any rate or side-effect considerations.

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 zero waste; the key verb 'validates' and the return value 'version' each earn their place.

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 health check with an output schema available, the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential purpose, though it could note error behavior; the output schema covers the version return.

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?

Parameter count is zero with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed.

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 and resource: 'Health check' plus the concrete action 'validates COM availability and returns version.' This distinguishes it from data-manipulation siblings like gsa_analyse or gsa_version_string, though the description does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 implies a connectivity/availability check use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as gsa_version_string for simply retrieving a version.

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