homer_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it is a light probe hitting a specific endpoint, returns {ok: false} (not raises) when Homer is not configured, and states that the absence of Homer must not break other tools. This provides transparent behavioral expectations.

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 highly concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, technical detail (endpoint), usage guidance, and error behavior.

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?

The description is complete for a simple health check tool with no parameters and an existing output schema. It mentions the endpoint and the error case. However, it does not explicitly state the success return value (likely {ok: true}), which is a minor gap given that the output schema is said to exist.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none. The description already implicitly covers the no-parameter nature by describing a self-contained health check.

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 purpose: 'Check whether the configured Homer instance is reachable.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Homer instance'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'homer_search_calls_v7' as a related tool that should only be attempted after this health check.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Useful when deciding whether to even attempt a homer_search_calls_v7 call.' It also explains the special case when Homer is not configured, returning {ok: false} instead of raising an error, which informs the agent when and how to use the tool.

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