health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly communicates that this is a non-mutating check ('Check server and Visio connection health'), which implies read-only semantics. However, it does not disclose whether the tool may throw errors, return partial results, or have any side effects, leaving some uncertainty about its behavior.

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, clear sentence that wastes no words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to scan. No unnecessary details are included.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It conveys the core purpose and what is checked, and the output schema handles return-value details. It could add context about what 'health' means or specific failure modes, but this is not a significant gap for a zero-parameter health check.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a score of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, as there is nothing to document beyond what the schema already shows.

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 a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource 'server and Visio connection health', making it distinct from all sibling tools which focus on document, page, stencil, or drawing operations. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 usage when you need to verify server or Visio connection health, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. Since no sibling tool performs health checks, the lack of alternatives is acceptable, but there is no explicit guidance on timing or prerequisites.

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