rag_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral scope: it only checks the authenticated API and does not verify Qdrant or models. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe the response format or error behavior.

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 that front-loads the main action and immediately clarifies scope with the exclusion. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 health-check tool with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what is checked and what is not. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about the return value (e.g., status codes or response shape), but with no output schema and a simple health check, this is a minor omission.

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 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('authenticated Open WebUI Knowledge API'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting what it does not verify ('does not verify Qdrant or models'). It is clear and concise, though it could be slightly more explicit about the health-check nature.

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 when to use this tool: to check the health of the Knowledge API specifically, not Qdrant or models. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and the exclusion of Qdrant/models provide clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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