Get system health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., whether it returns status codes, performance implications, or connection expectations). Minimal value beyond annotations.

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 is direct and front-loaded. Every word is necessary; no filler or redundancy. Perfectly concise for a simple 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it could mention that the tool returns health data (e.g., status or metrics), which would improve the agent's understanding of the expected response. Currently it only states the action, not the output.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 3. No additional parameter info is needed. Description does not add anything but is adequate given no parameters.

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 a specific verb (check) and resource (health status of the Arcane server), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like arcane_system_check_upgrade or arcane_system_get_docker_info. It directly states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a health check tool that might be called for monitoring or troubleshooting, a note on typical use cases would be helpful.

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