get_health

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive hints. The description adds extra context: 'internal Redis, AI-provider, and process details are intentionally redacted' and 'Single unauthenticated GET with no destructive actions', enriching behavioral understanding beyond the 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 concise despite its length: every sentence adds value (purpose, redaction, usage, alternative, auth). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids fluff.

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 health probe with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers return contents, redaction, usage context, and alternative tooling. It is fully complete for the tool's scope.

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?

With zero parameters, the description has no need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't mention parameters but doesn't need to; it clearly focuses on the tool's purpose and usage.

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 is a read-only health probe for the backend itself, not a target domain, and returns service status and timestamp. It distinguishes from siblings like get_stats and other domain-focused tools, fulfilling the specific verb+resource criterion.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'pre-flight check before batch jobs' and 'to distinguish a service incident from a real DNS finding', and provides an alternative: 'use get_stats for public usage counters instead'. This is clear guidance with exclusions and alternatives.

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