System Health Check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It indicates a read-oriented 'checks' operation, but it does not disclose what connectivity test is performed, whether any side effects occur, what failure modes look like, or what the returned health status contains.

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 compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action ('Checks') and immediately identifies the checked resources, making it appropriately sized for a zero-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 diagnostic tool, the description gives the basic scope of the operation, but with no output schema and no annotations it should explain what the caller receives or how to interpret the result. The phrase 'system health and database connectivity' is adequate but vague, leaving return-value semantics and failure behavior unspecified.

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 and an empty input schema, so the description needs to provide no parameter semantics. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies here because there is nothing for the schema or description to document.

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 'Checks' and names two concrete resources: 'system health' and 'database connectivity'. It clearly states what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling diagnostics like get-server-info or get-database-info.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternative diagnostic tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no contextual hint about the best use case. The description simply states the action without any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' direction.

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