dashbrr_get_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context about the return value ({"status": "ok"}) and clarifies the scope (instance itself vs. monitored services), which is useful. It does not disclose behavior when down, but this is minor for a simple liveness probe.

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, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key return detail. No unnecessary words.

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 parameterless, read-only liveness probe with an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, scope, and expected output. No gaps remain for a competent agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully covers everything. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-param tools; the description adds no parameter info but none is needed.

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 this is a liveness probe for the dashbrr instance itself, with a specific verb ('probe') and resource ('dashbrr instance'). It explicitly distinguishes from monitored services, aligning with sibling tools like dashbrr_check_service_health. The return payload is also specified.

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 an explicit exclusion ('not any monitored service'), telling the agent when not to use this tool. However, it does not name the alternative tool (e.g., dashbrr_check_service_health) for monitored service health checks, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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