voicebox_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Check') but doesn't describe what 'health' entails (e.g., uptime, performance metrics, error rates), how the check is performed, whether it requires authentication, or what the response format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Check VoiceBox TTS system health'. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'health' means in this context, what the check returns, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'voicebox_metrics'. For a health-check tool, more context on expected outputs or behavioral traits would improve completeness, even with no structured fields to compensate for.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, avoiding redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles the parameter aspect, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 'Check VoiceBox TTS system health' clearly states the verb ('Check') and resource ('VoiceBox TTS system health'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'voicebox_speak' (synthesis) and 'voicebox_speakers' (speaker management), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'voicebox_metrics' or 'voicebox_status' which might have overlapping health-related functions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'voicebox_metrics' or 'voicebox_status'. It implies usage for health checking but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., during troubleshooting, monitoring), prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context without explicit direction.

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