knowmind_health

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating read scope suffices, no parameters, and returns a status object per component, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.

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 brief and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage and return details. No unnecessary information, and the key points are front-loaded.

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 simple health-check tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns (status per component), when to use it, and that it is read-only, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. The description explicitly notes 'takes no parameters', reinforcing that no arguments are needed and adding clarity beyond the empty schema.

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?

Clearly states it returns the health of the knowmind backend and lists the components (Postgres, memory service, graph). The verb 'return' is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like stats or list operations.

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?

Explicitly provides usage scenarios: before batch writes or when calls fail, to distinguish an outage from an empty result. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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