OPA health check

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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the response format and the effect of the bundles and plugins flags, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the key action and endpoint. Every word earns its place.

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 simple health check tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the necessary context: what the tool does, what it returns, and the optional flags.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description briefly reiterates their purpose but adds only marginal context beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action ('Hit the OPA /health endpoint') and the resource, making it easy to understand what the tool does. It also specifies the return value on success, which distinguishes it from other tools that might return different data.

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 the tool is for checking OPA health but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like opa_status. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.

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