get_system_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the read-only nature ('Read-only aggregate'), discloses the 80% disk threshold, and explains failure semantics (sub-failures land in the errors field, never fatal). It lacks any note on permissions or rate limits, but adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loading what the verdict is derived from, then the usage/routing guidance. No filler and the most decision-relevant content comes first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated; the description covers derivation inputs, read-only status, and error handling. For a zero-param health check with an output schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no configuration is required.

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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (a single OK/WARNING/CRITICAL verdict) and enumerates exactly what inputs feed it: memory, disk partitions at 80%+, load vs core count, failed systemd units. It is immediately distinguishable from the many sibling get_* tools that report raw metrics.

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 says when to use it ('first-line pass/fail status') and when not to ('reports no raw metrics'), and names concrete alternatives (get_system_snapshot or the targeted tools). The routing guidance is unambiguous.

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