radiant_connection_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the checks performed (latency, status, server info) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the output format will be. This is a significant gap for a tool that could potentially be expected to be harmless but is not explicitly confirmed.

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 the verb and key details front-loaded. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, parameterless tool, the description conveys the core action and the data points examined. However, it omits usage context (when to call it) and behavioral specifics (read-only nature, return structure), which would be helpful even for a basic check. Given no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 states a clear verb ('Check') and resource ('ElectrumX connection health') and lists specific aspects (latency, connection status, server info), making the purpose obvious and distinct from siblings like radiant_reconnect. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other diagnostics (e.g., radiant_get_chain_info) beyond the general subject.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that it could be used before radiant_reconnect or to diagnose issues. The context of when a health check is appropriate is left entirely to the agent.

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