health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the checks performed but does not disclose potential side effects, whether the operation is read-only, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a health check, it's likely safe, but the description omits these details.

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 efficiently lists the health checks, with no wasted words. It is well front-loaded and earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input but lacks information about the return format or how to interpret results. For a health check, an agent might need to know the response structure (e.g., JSON with status codes). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by detailing what the tool does beyond the schema's empty object. Although there are no parameters to describe, the description effectively defines the tool's purpose.

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 runs a comprehensive health check and enumerates the specific areas verified: D-Tools API connectivity, configuration, webhook handler registration, and rate limiter status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like server_status, which may be a simpler ping.

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 implies the tool is for diagnostic purposes by listing health checks, offering clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like server_status, which could be a simpler check. The guidance is clear but lacks direct exclusions.

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