health_check

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

Description discloses key behaviors: trust_env=False, timeout 5s, specific endpoints per service, and that 401 for ruoyi is considered up (auth needed). It also states that any exception results in 'down' and no exceptions are thrown. With no annotations, this level of detail is commendable.

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?

Description is concise, well-structured with bullet points for each service. Every sentence adds value. No redundant or missing information.

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 health check with an output schema, the description covers return structure, behavior, edge cases, and nuances (e.g., 401 handling). It is complete and actionable.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline score of 4 applies as no parameters exist.

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 it checks three dependencies (ruoyi BE, toolkit, MySQL) and returns status objects. It uses specific verbs ('探活') and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools which are all action-oriented (e.g., login, search, delete).

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?

No explicit when-use or when-not-use guidance. However, the tool's purpose as a health check implies it should be used for verifying service status. No alternatives are mentioned, but no sibling tool serves this purpose.

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