get_ec2_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves health check status and includes instance and system checks, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or how the optional instanceId affects output 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?

The description is one concise sentence that leads with the action and resource, and immediately clarifies the two health check types. No filler or redundant content is present.

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 simple, single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers core context: what is retrieved and the scope. It could additionally describe the expected response shape, but the absence is not critical given the tool's low complexity and the schema already documents the default behavior.

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 input schema documents the single optional parameter completely, including the default behavior of checking all MoleCare instances. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details, but it also does not provide additional semantic context beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('AWS health check status for EC2 instances') and further specifies the scope ('including instance and system status checks'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_ec2_instances, get_ec2_instance, and get_ec2_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?

The description implies usage for retrieving EC2 health check statuses, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. While the resource and purpose are clear, there is no direct guidance on selecting this tool versus get_ec2_metrics or get_ec2_instance.

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