dashbrr_check_service_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the optional url/api_key behavior and the stored-vs-unsaved distinction. It also provides the service parameter format with concrete examples, enriching the behavioral model beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence earns its place—purpose then parameter semantics. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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?

With an output schema present and a simple read-only tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage modes. It doesn't need to explain return values, making it complete for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains service as an instanceId and clarifies the conditional relationship between url and api_key (both empty vs provided). This directly compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Run a health check for one configured service' with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies scope ('one configured service') and provides example instanceIds, distinguishing it from broader sibling tools like dashbrr_get_health.

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 clearly explains the two usage modes: checking a stored service or testing an unsaved one with url/api_key. It gives explicit parameter-related guidance but doesn't mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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