fleet_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'check' and specifies the metrics (reachability, model count), but it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or how unreachable hosts are handled, leaving gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('reachability', 'model count', 'every host', 'fleet') carries essential information, making it maximally concise.

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 tool with no parameters, annotations, or output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is checked and the scope, but it does not describe the return format or error behavior. Given the low complexity, this is adequate.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema is empty. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools; the description already conveys the full meaningful action, so no additional parameter elaboration is needed.

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 function: checking reachability and model count for every host in the fleet. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_models and pull_model by focusing on fleet-wide health rather than model operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of use cases, prerequisites, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer that it is for fleet monitoring.

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