health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions what is checked (binaries, codecs, filters, write access) and that it reports backends, implying a read-only diagnostic. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it describe any potential errors or the nature of the 'report' (e.g., format, verbosity). This is adequate but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The primary action ('Check') and key subjects are front-loaded, and the clause about reporting backends adds necessary scope without unnecessary detail. It is perfectly sized for a no-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 tool, the description is mostly complete for invocation. However, it lacks details about the output format of the 'report' (e.g., JSON, plain text) and any possible failure modes (e.g., missing binaries causing errors). Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should hint at the return structure to help an agent interpret the result. This gap prevents a higher score.

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 schema coverage is trivially complete. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds context by specifying the scope of the check (binaries, codecs, filters, write access, backends), which is meaningful beyond the empty 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's purpose with a specific verb 'Check' and enumerates the resources examined: binaries, codecs, filters, and local write access. It also mentions reporting configured backends. This is unambiguous and easily distinguishable from any sibling tool, none of which perform environment diagnostics.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since none of the siblings appear to offer a similar health-check function, the need for differentiation is low. However, the description does not state any prerequisites or typical invocation scenarios (e.g., 'run before media operations'), leaving usage timing to inference.

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