check_backend_health

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it is manual, caches results for 5 minutes, and requires explicit request. Without annotations, this provides adequate transparency for a simple health check. It does not address authentication or side effects, but those are likely irrelevant.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key features (manual, on-demand, caching). Every word adds value, and the structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers caching behavior and manual invocation. It does not specify response format, but for a health check the result is typically evident (success/failure). This is fairly complete for its complexity.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context about caching to clarify the 'force' parameter, but does not explain response format or default behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it performs 'health diagnostics' for a specific backend, using the verb 'check' and specifying the resource 'backend health'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it is a manual, on-demand operation with caching.

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 indicates this tool is for manual, on-demand checks and 'only runs when explicitly requested'. This guides the agent to call it deliberately rather than relying on automatic health checks. It does not contrast with alternatives, but given the sibling set lacks similar tools, the context is sufficient.

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