health_validate

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only vs destructive, permissions, side effects). It only says 'validate', which implies a non-destructive read operation, but this is not explicit. No mention of whether it modifies indices or requires special access.

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, well-formed sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is perfectly concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacking. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, details of integrity check) or how to interpret the result. For a validation tool, more context on output would be helpful.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given zero parameters. Baseline score of 4 applies.

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 states it 'Validates search indices and data integrity', which clearly identifies the action and resources. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like health_ping (health check) or admin_rebuild_indices (index rebuilding). However, it could be more precise by specifying what the validation entails (e.g., consistency checks).

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as health_ping or admin_cache_status. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual advice is given.

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