check_backend_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses caching (5 minutes, force bypass), read-only nature (makes one HTTP request), and return fields including status, latency, cache status. Could be improved by mentioning error handling or timeout behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured. While slightly verbose, every sentence contributes value. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers usage context, caching details, return format, and behavioral traits, leaving no significant gaps.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains the caching behavior and the effect of force parameter (bypass cache), and lists backend options in the schema.

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 tool performs an 'on-demand ping' to 'verify reachability and capture latency', specifying the verb (ping) and resource (backend API endpoint). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that periodic auto-health checks already exist, so this is for specific troubleshooting scenarios.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'troubleshooting a routing decision that failed unexpectedly or before kicking off a long batch call against a particular backend'. Also says 'most callers don't need this' due to periodic checks, providing clear guidance on when not to use.

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