forcepoint_health_check

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

The description discloses the tool is 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait, and specifies the endpoint used. However, it does not explain what happens on failure, timeout, or the format of the response, leaving gaps in transparency given no annotations are provided.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and read-only nature.

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?

While the tool has a simple interface (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description omits crucial context about the parameter and expected output. It does not clarify what constitutes a successful health check or what the response contains, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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?

The description does not mention the 'userId' parameter at all, and the schema has zero description coverage. Since the parameter is optional and unexplained, the agent cannot infer its role in the health check.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Verify Forcepoint reachability and stored credentials using the documented group-list read endpoint.' The verb 'Verify' and the specific resource (Forcepoint reachability and credentials) make the purpose distinct from sibling tools like forcepoint_group_list or forcepoint_connection_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 description implies the tool is for health-checking, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as forcepoint_connection_info or forcepoint_api_request. It provides context about the endpoint but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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