knowmind_health

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, it discloses lifecycle behavior (deprecated, removed 2027-03-31, answers unchanged until then), the auth requirement ('read scope suffices'), that it takes no parameters, and the shape of the result ('status object per component'). These are substantive traits the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the deprecation warning, then purpose, usage, return shape and auth in four tight sentences. Every sentence adds information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by stating the return is a per-component status object. Deprecation, auth scope, and usage context are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'takes no parameters', which is consistent with the empty schema and leaves no ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the health of the knowmind backend') and enumerates the components checked (Postgres, memory service, graph). It also distinguishes itself from its replacement knowmind_get_health and flags its own deprecation, so an agent can place it immediately.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: 'before a batch of writes or when calls fail, to tell an outage apart from an empty result.' It also names the successor tool and the migration deadline, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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