game_vapi_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and goes well beyond basics: one logical GET, no continuation fetching, local array truncation limits, refusal of oversized records, and forwarding of filters without implied effectiveness. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but several sentences are generic boilerplate unrelated to a no-parameter tool ('Required inputs...', 'Other declared filters...'), and there is also a missing period between 'GET request' and 'Does not'. These distract from the otherwise useful behavioral notes.

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 no-input health endpoint, the description covers what it returns, its read-only nature, request behavior, and local limits. The boilerplate about filters and inputs slightly muddies completeness, but the essential information an agent needs is present.

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 schema has zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document; baseline 4 applies. The comment about required inputs and filters is generic boilerplate and doesn't add meaning for this no-input tool.

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 identifies a specific operation: reading the public VAPI health root and the metadata it returns (status, app/version/environment). The caveat that it is not a claim about game route availability distinguishes it from game-status siblings.

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 clear context that this is a health read and explicitly disclaims routing availability, so an agent understands its scope. It doesn't name a specific alternative for checking individual game routes, but the limitation is enough to guide selection.

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