health_check

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: declares 'pure read' behavior, lists exactly what is returned including the detailed return object fields, discloses token-based conditional behavior, and states 'Errors: none expected'. Very thorough behavioral disclosure given zero annotation support.

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?

Well front-loaded with a one-line summary, then clear labeled sections (When to use, Behavior, Returns, Errors). Every sentence earns its place—no filler, efficient use of paragraphs and code formatting for the return shape.

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 a read-only health check with one optional param and no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape, error behavior, transport compat, and token handling. Nothing material is missing; it's complete for its complexity level.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional parameter. The description adds context by noting the token is 'also resolvable from RELAY_AGENT_TOKEN env or X-Agent-Token header', going beyond the schema's own description. This is a small refinement over a strong schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Report relay process health + live counts') and clearly distinguishes from siblings, notably naming get_standup as the heavier alternative ('Cheaper than get_standup for binary up/down questions'). The scope of what's counted (agents, messages, tasks, channels, webhooks) is explicit.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('liveness probes', 'version-pinning checks', 'dashboard footers') and provides a direct comparison with get_standup including a cost/benefit rationale. It also notes transport compatibility (stdio AND HTTP) and that no capability is required, giving complete selection guidance.

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