iccap_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Check... and report' strongly implies a read-only status operation, but the description does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, what happens if no gateway is selected, or what 'feedback capabilities' means. This leaves behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and delivers the core information without filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main aspects (busy/session state and feedback capabilities) but omits important context: how a gateway becomes 'selected,' whether an active session is required, and any error/return behavior. This leaves an agent with some uncertainty about invocation prerequisites.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description's mention of 'selected' refers to a contextual selection state, not a parameter. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no necessary parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names a concrete resource ('the selected IC-CAP gateway'), then further specifies what is reported: 'busy/session state plus feedback capabilities.' This makes the tool's function clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from related sibling tools like iccap_status_get or iccap_sessions_list.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites such as requiring a selected gateway, nor does it contrast this health check with the many iccap status/session/job sibling tools.

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