health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses important behaviors: SSH connection, fallback HTTP clients (curl/wget/python3), process check via ps -ef, and no JDK dependencies. This provides transparency into the tool's operation.

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 fairly concise and well-structured, with a brief overview followed by a clear Args list. However, the Args list could be integrated to reduce redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete, explaining both health checks. It could mention return format, but the core functionality is well-covered.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for each of the 6 parameters in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title fields.

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 the tool's purpose: SSH to a server and check an IBM Liberty app's health via HTTP probe and process check. It distinguishes from sibling tools (read_config, list_logs, analyze_logs) which have different purposes.

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 this tool (for health checking of IBM Liberty apps) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. However, the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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