health_check

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates the tool is read-only and checks connectivity and stats, but does not disclose potential performance impact, authorization requirements, or what exactly 'basic runtime statistics' includes.

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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding a brief detail. No unnecessary words.

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?

An output schema exists (not shown), so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks details on what 'basic runtime statistics' covers, making it minimally complete for a health check tool.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3, and the description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given zero parameters.

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 it runs a 'comprehensive health check' against the OpenSIPS instance, checking MI connectivity and retrieving basic runtime statistics. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual statistics or components.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_statistics, get_uptime, or opensips_cp_status. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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