health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Check' implies a read-only, non-destructive probe and it names what is inspected, but it says nothing about side effects, latency, failure modes, or what happens when the backend is unavailable.

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 no padding; every clause ('gateway limits', 'configured replay backend') earns its place and the object of the check comes first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a zero-parameter diagnostic needs little more than a statement of what it verifies. The only gap is the lack of any hint about when to run it relative to the capture/launch workflow.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly adds no misleading parameter context.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and two concrete resources ('gateway limits', 'replay backend availability'), which lets an agent distinguish this diagnostic from the graphics-capture siblings. It is clear about what it does, though it does not explicitly name itself as the diagnostic/pre-flight counterpart to tools like launch_program or open_capture.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus any sibling, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. A health/diagnostic check's timing (e.g., before launch_program or after a backend change) is left entirely to inference.

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