check_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It only says 'pings known URLs,' which hints at network behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., latency, failures, rate limits) or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs an external action.

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 two short sentences, efficient and free of extraneous information. It conveys the core purpose without 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?

For a simple health-check tool, the description covers the action and scope but omits output details (e.g., return format, what 'reachable' means) and potential failure behavior. Given no annotations and no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 single parameter 'project' is 100% covered by the schema with its description 'Project directory name'. The tool description reinforces this by mentioning Vercel/Netlify projects. It doesn't explain the mapping from name to URLs, but the parameter itself is clearly defined.

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') and resource ('deployed project') and mentions Vercel/Netlify, making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like deployment_map, but the focus on reachability is distinct enough.

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 verifying deployment reachability, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like deployment_map or get_project. It gives context (Vercel/Netlify) but no explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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