health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself discloses the HTTP method (GET), the exact endpoint, and that no authentication is required. This gives an agent sufficient behavioral understanding for a simple, side-effect-free health probe, even if it does not discuss response shape or rate limits.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, and the auth requirement is stated as a useful addendum. 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 no-parameter, simple health-check endpoint, the description provides the essential invocation details: HTTP method, path, and auth requirement. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not required here, so the description is complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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, so the semantic burden on the description is minimal. The baseline of 4 applies, and no parameter documentation is needed beyond confirming that the call takes no arguments, which the empty schema already makes clear.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Ping le serveur') with the exact endpoint and HTTP method (GET /api/healthz), making its purpose immediately clear. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_version or get_capabilities, which target different resources.

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 use as a server liveness/health check via 'ping' and the /healthz endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. There are no sibling health-check tools, so the intended context is clear enough, but explicit guidance is minimal.

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