check_backend_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does disclose read-only behavior, one HTTP request, and the return shape. However, it claims 'makes one HTTP request' while the force parameter says 'Bypass cache and force fresh check,' implying that cached results may be returned by default. This caching behavior is not disclosed in the description, leaving a meaningful ambiguity.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the return format in a structured inline block. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description provides essential context, return fields, and read-only status, and the schema covers parameters well. However, it omits the caching behavior implied by force and does not mention timeout, error conditions, or prerequisites. For a simple health-check tool this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both backend and force well described. The description adds context about the output fields and the scope of backend, but does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('ping'), a specific resource (one backend's API endpoint), and the purpose (verify reachability, capture latency). It further distinguishes itself by explicitly saying it hits only the named backend, not the whole fleet, so it is immediately differentiated from any broader monitoring tool.

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 clearly frames this as an on-demand, single-backend health check and excludes fleet-wide checking with 'Hits only the named backend, not the whole fleet.' It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the context and exclusion are clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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