health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that it checks auth, config, and routes for each profile, and that the output includes 'ok' and 'fix' fields when something fails. The word 'Diagnostico' implies a read-only operation, though it doesn't explicitly state that no changes are made.

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 concise and well-structured: three short sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third explains output behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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, parameter-less diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when it can be used, what it checks, and how to interpret the output. The output schema handles the detailed return structure, so the description need not repeat it.

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 zero parameters, so there is no schema to explain. The description adds appropriate context about its operation, matching the baseline for parameter-less tools.

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 it is a diagnostic tool that reports what works and what doesn't, and provides fix instructions. The verb 'diagnostico' and resource ('health' of profiles) are specific, and the mention of checking auth, config, and paths distinguishes it from sibling status tools like 'studio_status' or 'session_status'.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: it can be called without selecting an account, and it checks profiles' auth, config, and paths. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.

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