uptime_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a 'one-time' check (not continuous monitoring) and specifies the return data (status, code, response time), but does not mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or network constraints. This covers core functionality but leaves gaps in operational details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key return values without unnecessary words. Every element ('one-time HTTP uptime check', 'URL', 'returns...') serves a clear purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (HTTP check with timing), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a solid foundation but lacks details on error responses, retry behavior, or output structure. It is complete enough for basic use but would benefit from more context on failure modes or performance characteristics.

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%, with both parameters ('url' and 'timeout') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format examples or timeout implications. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('perform a one-time HTTP uptime check'), the resource ('on a URL'), and the outcome ('returns whether the site is up or down, HTTP status code, and response time'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'security_scan' or 'ssl_certificate' by focusing solely on uptime monitoring rather than security or certificate analysis.

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 checking website availability with timing metrics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'security_scan' for vulnerability checks or 'dns_lookup' for DNS issues. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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