system.health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the categories of information returned (version, open file, queue depth, error buffer), giving a clear picture of the tool's output and suggesting it is a read-only diagnostic operation. No side effects or contradictions are implied.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Bridge health') and immediately lists the key data points. Every word is informative, and there is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 absence of parameters and output schema, the description adequately communicates the tool's purpose and output. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the context (e.g., 'bridge' referring to the Blender integration) or potential prerequisites, though the core information is present.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by specifying exactly what health metrics are reported, which enhances understanding beyond the empty schema.

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 specific terms like 'Blender version', 'open .blend', 'queue depth', and 'last-error ring buffer', clearly indicating the tool reports bridge health metrics. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like system.operations or system.cancel which serve 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The agent must infer its usage from the health monitoring context.

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