bookshelf_get_health

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not describe response format, potential error conditions, or any operational constraints. With the annotation already indicating a safe read, the description provides no additional value.

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?

At two words, the description is extremely brief but under-specified. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity, failing to explain what the health resource represents.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It does not explain what health includes or how it differs from other system status endpoints, leaving the agent to infer purpose.

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 the description has no parameter semantics to clarify. According to the rubric, zero-parameter tools get a baseline score of 4.

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 the verb 'List' with the object 'health', clearly indicating a read operation that retrieves health information. It is distinct from sibling tools as no other tool targets health specifically, though it lacks contextual detail about what 'health' encompasses.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or relationship to other status tools like get_system_status.

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