health_check

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

With no annotations or output schema, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It states that the tool checks health and reachability, but does not explain how success/failure is signaled (e.g., return value, exception, HTTP status), nor whether any side effects or permissions are involved. For a simple health check, the core behavior is clear, but the response contract is left unspecified.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and carries no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 trivial no-parameter health check, this description is largely sufficient. However, the absence of any information about the return format or failure behavior could leave an agent uncertain about how to interpret the result, which is a minor gap for tool-selection and invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies; the description correctly focuses on the operation rather than non-existent arguments.

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 ('Check') with a clear resource ('the Locus service') and desired outcome ('healthy and reachable'). It unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and is naturally distinct from sibling tools, which all perform CRUD operations on spaces, documents, settings, or search.

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 clearly implies a health-check/diagnostic use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There are no exclusions or guidance on prerequisites, though the distinct nature of the operation makes the intended context evident.

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