is_healthy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only health check but does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, what 'ready' means, or what happens in failure cases. It provides minimal context beyond the core behavior, which is a clear but sparse 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that accurately conveys the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple health check operation.

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 tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks differentiation from the sibling 'get_health_status' and offers no usage context, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool. This prevents a higher score.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Check if the AAS environment is ready for requests.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_health_status', which likely serves a similar role, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'get_health_status'. There is no mention of scenarios where this check is appropriate, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the usage context.

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