health

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

No annotations are provided, but the description adequately conveys that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation ('Live status'). It lists the surfaces monitored. The phrase 'Free' suggests no cost or side effects. A fully transparent description might detail the response format, but for a health check, this is sufficient.

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 front-loads the purpose and includes key details (list of surfaces, free, no arguments). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple health check but lacks details on output structure (e.g., format of status values). Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer what 'Live status' means. The list of surfaces provides good context, but additional clarity on the response would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, and the description explicitly states 'no arguments'. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 as per instructions. The description adds value by confirming the absence of required inputs, making it clear the tool is immediately usable.

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 returns 'Live status of each backend surface' listing specific surfaces (GSC, GA4, Site Audit, AI Tracker, Tasks). The verb 'Live status' and resource 'backend surface' are specific. This distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on individual data retrieval or operations.

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 says 'Free, no arguments', guiding the agent that it can be called without any preparation or parameters. It implies this is a safe, lightweight call. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context makes usage clear.

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