health

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: the tool imports engines and returns version information. The term 'sanity check' also implies a non-destructive read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state that no state is modified. For a simple health check this is sufficient context.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Sanity check') and immediately follows with the precise behavior and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it will return, and implies its role as a health check. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since the schema already fully covers the empty parameter set at 100% coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'verify' plus a concrete resource ('engines are importable') and states the output ('return versions'). This clearly identifies it as a health-check/diagnostic operation, which is distinct from the data-collection focused sibling tools like scrape, extract, and crawl.

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 this is a sanity check to run for verifying setup, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given the tool has zero parameters and a single obvious purpose, the implied usage is adequate but not fully explicit.

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