health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the scope of the check (engine versions, dependencies, update status) and implies a read-only diagnostic operation. However, it does not detail any side effects (likely none), how it reports failures (e.g., exit codes, summary output), or whether it performs network calls. For a zero-parameter health check, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences that front-load the purpose and then immediately provide usage guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is concise and structured optimally for agent parsing.

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 tool, the description explains what it verifies and when to run it. The output schema (not shown in the input but indicated as present) likely covers the exact return format. The description is sufficient for an agent to know why and when to call the tool, though it does not specify what constitutes 'working' beyond installed engines. This is a minor gap, but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no schema coverage gap. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter baseline is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter details, so this score is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: 'Verify PyreCrawl is working: engine versions, dependencies, update status.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools that perform scraping tasks. An agent can immediately understand this is a pre-flight health check, not a scraping operation.

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 says when to use it: 'at the start of a session or before a large scraping job to confirm all engines are installed and up to date.' This gives concrete context. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use rather than scrape when...'), but the purpose and usage are clear enough that an agent would be unlikely to confuse it with a scraping tool.

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