peer_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (check responsiveness) but lacks details on side effects (presumably none), required permissions, or output format. The verb 'check' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety or what happens on failure.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose. Front-loaded with the key action and target.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it could briefly mention how the result is returned (e.g., boolean status) to avoid ambiguity. Still, the simplicity makes it mostly 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?

Input schema has zero parameters (schema coverage 100% vacuously). Description adds no parameter info because none exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate further.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the specific resources 'Grok and Antigravity CLIs', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., peer_ask, peer_debate) which involve querying or discussing, while this is a simple health check.

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?

Description implies usage (when you need to check CLI responsiveness) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool. Given the many sibling tools, some contextual tips would help, but the use case is straightforward.

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