health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description details what the tool returns (diagnostic info and next steps), which informs the agent about the tool's non-destructive, read-only nature. It adds behavioral context beyond the name, though it could explicitly state it makes no changes to the environment.

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 concise, with two sentences that each earn their place: the first details the returned content, the second provides usage guidance. No redundant or filler text is present.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description provides complete context: what it checks, what it returns, and when to use it. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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 and the schema is empty, so there is no need for parameter explanation. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately covers the tool's purpose.

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 returns structured diagnostic information about specific components (MCP service, browser extension, native host, browser access status) and next steps. It uniquely identifies this as a health check tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions like navigation or clicking.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to check whether the browser automation bridge is ready, providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given the tool's unique diagnostic role, this is sufficient guidance.

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