hr_live_health

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'health check' but does not disclose what the check entails (e.g., what happens if tokens are invalid, whether any side effects occur, or what the response format is). The agent cannot infer safety or destructiveness from this description alone.

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 that conveys the essential information without extraneous text. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description lacks any indication of what a health check result looks like or how to interpret it, which could be important for agent decision-making. It is adequate but could be more informative.

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 no parameters and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying which connectors are covered, which is not evident from the schema. This provides context beyond the structural definition.

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 'Health check for HR connector tokens' with specific connectors listed (BambooHR, Greenhouse, Monday). It uses a specific verb ('health check') and resource ('HR connector tokens'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hr_live_advance_application or hr_live_whos_out.

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 implies its usage (checking token health) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other hr_live_* tools or alternative approaches. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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