get_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It specifies the tool returns a summary of runtime status with listed items, which provides moderate transparency. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or reliability details.

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 sentence, front-loaded with 'Runtime status', and contains no unnecessary words. Every listed item is meaningful for understanding the output.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview. However, some terms like 'CBT' and 'vector/drawer count' are not explained, which may leave an agent unsure of their meaning.

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 input schema has no parameters (coverage 100%), so the description adds value by enumerating the fields included in the output (initialized, mode, CBT, audit, vector/drawer count, config summary). This goes 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'Runtime status' and lists specific components like initialized, mode, CBT, audit, vector/drawer count, config summary. This makes the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_system_profile', which could be a similar status check.

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 implies the tool is used when runtime status is needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives like 'get_system_profile'.

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