health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return contents and the fact that this is a non-mutating inspection step whose purpose is gating a refresh. It omits any note on cost, rate limits, or side effects, but for a zero-parameter status read there is little else to disclose.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the payload listing comes first and the decision guidance follows, so the agent gets scope before routing advice.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of return-value information, and it enumerates the fields returned plus the intended follow-up action. It does not describe the response format or how counts are structured, which is a minor residual gap for a simple status tool.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly says nothing about arguments, which matches the empty schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and enumerates the exact payload (build time, Dalamud version, namespace/type counts, lazy-member coverage), which is far more concrete than the bare name 'health'. It does not directly contrast itself with the other read-listing siblings, but the enumeration makes its scope unmistakable.

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?

It states an explicit decision context: 'Use to decide whether to call refresh_cache', naming the alternative sibling and the condition that selects it. It stops short of stating when *not* to call it or listing other alternatives, so it is not a full 5.

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