system_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no indication of what health is checked, whether it probes dependencies, or what the response conveys.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded phrase with no filler, which suits a zero-parameter tool. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than genuine concision.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe what the health check returns (a status flag, component breakdown, etc.) and it does not. An agent cannot tell whether the result is a boolean, a summary object, or detailed diagnostics.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

"Get Remnawave Health" essentially restates the tool name (system_health) with no added specificity about what "health" covers. It gives no way to distinguish this from siblings like system_stats, system_metadata, or auth_status, which all sound like system-state reads.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The word "Health" faintly implies a monitoring/diagnostic use case, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over system_stats or the various system_* tools.

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