rtpengine_instance_health

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully describes what the tool returns (reachability, load, state, stats) and its relationship to rtpengine_show. It suggests a read-only operation, though no explicit side-effect disclosure.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence is necessary and clear.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description provides good context on output and use case, differentiating from a sibling. It could mention that it is a safe read-only tool, but overall sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds significant value by explaining the tool's output and purpose beyond what the empty schema shows.

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 returns reachability and load for every RTPEngine instance, and explicitly differentiates it from rtpengine_show by mentioning it folds in disabled/enabled state and stats.

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 context for operators to decide which instance to shed load, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools beyond mentioning rtpengine_show.

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