get_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It accurately lists the report contents, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, or any side effects. The listing covers the main output but omits edge-case behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists all key report elements without unnecessary words. Every item earns its place, and the structure is highly scannable.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a good outline of the report's contents but does not describe the return format or structure (e.g., object fields vs. list). It is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks some details a caller might need.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter 'id' (alias/serial number, omit for all batteries). The description adds only the notion of 'per-battery' scope, which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 the tool provides a 'per-battery health report' and enumerates specific data elements (cell delta status, temperature status, SOH, weak/outlier cell indices, average C-rate, discharge-phase delta). This distinguishes it from broader tools like get_battery and get_fleet_summary, though it could explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_cell_stats or get_module_health. It does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the content list.

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