check_server_health

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool performs a health-endpoint request, implying a read-only diagnostic operation, and it specifies the scope. Still, the description does not disclose the response shape or potential error behavior, but this is a simple health check and enough context is present for safe use.

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?

A single, focused sentence identifies the target, the environment, and the method. No extraneous words, and all important details are front-loaded.

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 tool with a single required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it clarifies what the tool does and what the input means. The only real gap is that the agent isn't told what the return value looks like, but 'responding' and 'health' are enough for the common use case.

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 schema description already covers instanceId at 100% clarity, and the tool description repeats this context without adding more meaning. Since the schema carries the parameter-meaning weight, the baseline of 3 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 clearly states a specific action ('Check') and resource ('molecare-server application') along with the mechanism ('hitting its health endpoint') and the location ('on an EC2 instance'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from broader EC2 health checks and service status tools.

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 implies when to use it — whenever an agent needs to verify that the molecare-server application is responsive on a specific EC2 instance — but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the many health/status sibling tools, a note about not being equivalent to get_ec2_health or get_service_health would make it clearer.

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