cleanuparr_health

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

The description adds the behavioral context of 'anonymous' liveness, implying no authentication is required. This is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds a minor detail beyond the structured annotation. However, it does not elaborate on the response format or what constitutes liveness, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and target. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning a perfect score for brevity and front-loading.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete for a basic liveness check. The only notable gap is its failure to differentiate from the many sibling health-related tools, which might leave the agent wondering about specific use cases. Still, for a straightforward /health endpoint, the explanation is sufficient.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is complete at 100% coverage, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here.

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's function: 'Check anonymous liveness at /health.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource ('anonymous liveness' at the /health endpoint). However, it does not distinguish from sibling health-related tools like cleanuparr_health_ready or cleanuparr_health_detailed, which would require more context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools with similar health-related names (e.g., health_ready, health_detailed, health_checks), and the description does not explain how this tool fits into the broader workflow or when it should be preferred.

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