system_health_summary

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying the aggregate status categories and returned breakdowns, though it does not define status thresholds or clarify how 'recent' failures are scoped.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of output components. Every clause names a specific element of the health snapshot, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the snapshot returns, and annotations cover the safety profile. It still leaves modest gaps around when to prefer this overview over sibling diagnostics and how status thresholds or failure recency are determined.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (environment, lookbackHours) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning; it only refers generally to 'recent failure count' without explaining the environment or lookback behavior.

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?

It uses a specific verb ('Produce') and resource ('high-level operational health snapshot') and enumerates the returned components: overall status, active/queued jobs, recent failures, top abend codes, and per-owner failure breakdown. This clearly distinguishes it from more granular siblings such as find_failed_jobs and summarize_abends.

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 this is for a broad health check rather than detailed investigation, but it never explicitly says when to use it instead of siblings like find_failed_jobs, get_wlm_status, or analyze_root_cause. There are no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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