get_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It conveys that the tool returns active health warnings/errors with links, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, auth-free, or side-effect free. For a simple zero-parameter getter, this is minimally adequate.

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, efficient sentence that leads with the action and resource and immediately states the key output detail (wiki links). No words are wasted.

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 zero-parameter health-read tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it tells the agent exactly what will be returned (active warnings and errors, with a wiki link for each). Nothing essential is missing at this level of complexity.

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, and the input schema is empty. There is no parameter surface to document, so the description does not need to add anything here; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('active health check warnings and errors'), and it adds the distinctive detail of a wiki link per item. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_system_status or get_queue_status.

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 says what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The usage context is only implicit in the tool name and the word 'Get'.

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