x_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, failure modes, or return format. It only states that the resolved X auth scope is returned, leaving most behavioral traits opaque.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verbs, and contains no filler or repetition. The length is appropriate for the stated purpose.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of parameter usage or return behavior, the description leaves important context unaddressed, such as what the connectivity validation returns and how the parameters are combined.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the three parameters (scopeUserId, scopeTenantId, scopeAccountId) or how they relate to the requested tenant principal. The parameter names provide minimal self-descriptive meaning, but no additional semantics are added.

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 specific verbs 'Validate' and 'return', naming Postgres, Vault, X auth scope, and tenant principal. It clearly states the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like x_connection_info or x_scope_info.

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 purpose statement implies use for health-checking connectivity and resolving auth scope, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as x_connection_info/x_scope_info.

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