system1_laya_healthChecks whether the Laya model is loaded, loading, or failed and returns its last latency so you can monitor readiness and diagnose load issues.
[system1] Return whether the Laya model is loaded, loading, or failed, plus last latency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by enumerating the three possible load states and the presence of a latency figure, which is the key behavioral context for a health probe. It omits latency units and whether the probe itself can trigger loading, minor gaps.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource and then the returned signals in order of importance. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the state enumeration and latency. Combined with read-only annotations and an empty parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Only the latency unit and failure-detail granularity are unstated.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
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 specific verb and resource: it returns whether the Laya model is loaded, loading, or failed, plus last latency. That is far more precise than a tautological restatement of the name. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like system1_laya_info or system1_laya_analyze, which keeps it from a 5.
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 states listed imply the use case (checking model readiness before calling analyze), but no when-to-use condition or exclusion is stated. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer system1_laya_info or this tool for status questions. Usage is inferred rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.