check_backend_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the operation is read-only, makes exactly one HTTP request, and lists the exact return fields including success/error and latency. It does not mention caching behavior, which is relevant given the 'force' parameter, but the core behavioral traits are transparently covered.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence provides distinct information—scope, read-only nature, and return format—without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it a model of concise tool documentation.

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 read-only health check with no output schema, the description sufficiently documents the return payload and the tool's scope. It could mention caching behavior to fully align with the 'force' parameter, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (backend and force), so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'ping' and identifies the resource as 'one specific backend's API endpoint', explicitly contrasting with 'not the whole fleet'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from any fleet-wide check, giving a precise statement of what it does and its scope.

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?

It provides clear context that this tool is for checking a single named backend and notes it is not a fleet-wide check, which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not name an alternative tool for fleet-wide checks or other scenarios, so it stops short of explicit when-not/alternatives guidance.

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