lingie_health

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the checks performed (online status, ComfyUI engine, auth) and recommends calling before generation, which implies a safe read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects or describe what the response contains or failure looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence: it opens with the core purpose, lists the specific checks, and ends with the practical usage recommendation. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter health-check tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is checked and when to use it. There is no output schema, so the agent must discover the response format at runtime, but the simplicity of the tool keeps this gap minor.

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 accepts zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate here; the baseline 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 a specific verb ('检查' / check) and resource ('灵姬客户端本地 API 的可用性'), and enumerates exactly what is verified: service online, local ComfyUI running, auth required. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that list workflows, run workflows, or manage runs.

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 gives explicit usage context: '开始生成前建议先调用' (recommended to call before starting generation). It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but no alternative is relevant for a health-check tool, so the guidance is clear enough.

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